1
|
Luen SJ, Viale G, Nik-Zainal S, Savas P, Kammler R, Dell'Orto P, Biasi O, Degasperi A, Brown LC, Láng I, MacGrogan G, Tondini C, Bellet M, Villa F, Bernardo A, Ciruelos E, Karlsson P, Neven P, Climent M, Müller B, Jochum W, Bonnefoi H, Martino S, Davidson NE, Geyer C, Chia SK, Ingle JN, Coleman R, Solbach C, Thürlimann B, Colleoni M, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A, Fleming GF, Francis PA, Speed TP, Regan MM, Loi S. Genomic characterisation of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer arising in very young women. Ann Oncol 2023; 34:397-409. [PMID: 36709040 PMCID: PMC10619213 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Revised: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Very young premenopausal women diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC) have higher rates of recurrence and death for reasons that remain largely unexplained. PATIENTS AND METHODS Genomic sequencing was applied to HR+HER2- tumours from patients enrolled in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) to determine genomic drivers that are enriched in young premenopausal women. Genomic alterations were characterised using next-generation sequencing from a subset of 1276 patients (deep targeted sequencing, n = 1258; whole-exome sequencing in a young-age, case-control subsample, n = 82). We defined copy number (CN) subgroups and assessed for features suggestive of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Genomic alteration frequencies were compared between young premenopausal women (<40 years) and older premenopausal women (≥40 years), and assessed for associations with distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Younger women (<40 years, n = 359) compared with older women (≥40 years, n = 917) had significantly higher frequencies of mutations in GATA3 (19% versus 16%) and CN amplifications (CNAs) (47% versus 26%), but significantly lower frequencies of mutations in PIK3CA (32% versus 47%), CDH1 (3% versus 9%), and MAP3K1 (7% versus 12%). Additionally, they had significantly higher frequencies of features suggestive of HRD (27% versus 21%) and a higher proportion of PIK3CA mutations with concurrent CNAs (23% versus 11%). Genomic features suggestive of HRD, PIK3CA mutations with CNAs, and CNAs were associated with significantly worse DRFI and OS compared with those without these features. These poor prognostic features were enriched in younger patients: present in 72% of patients aged <35 years, 54% aged 35-39 years, and 40% aged ≥40 years. Poor prognostic features [n = 584 (46%)] versus none [n = 692 (54%)] had an 8-year DRFI of 84% versus 94% and OS of 88% versus 96%. Younger women (<40 years) had the poorest outcomes: 8-year DRFI 74% versus 85% and OS 80% versus 93%, respectively. CONCLUSION These results provide insights into genomic alterations that are enriched in young women with HR+HER2- EBC, provide rationale for genomic subgrouping, and highlight priority molecular targets for future clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S J Luen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - G Viale
- International Breast Cancer Study Group Central Pathology Office, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - S Nik-Zainal
- Department of Medical Genetics & MRC Cancer Unit, The Clinical School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - P Savas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - R Kammler
- International Breast Cancer Study Group, Coordinating Center, Central Pathology Office, Bern, Switzerland
| | - P Dell'Orto
- International Breast Cancer Study Group Central Pathology Office, Department of Pathology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - O Biasi
- Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - A Degasperi
- Department of Medical Genetics & MRC Cancer Unit, The Clinical School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - L C Brown
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - I Láng
- Istenhegyi Health Center Oncology Clinic, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - G MacGrogan
- Biopathology Department, Institut Bergonié Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Bordeaux, France
| | - C Tondini
- Osp. Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - M Bellet
- Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) and Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - F Villa
- Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology, Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, ASST Lecco, Lecco, Italy
| | - A Bernardo
- ICS Maugeri IRCCS, Medical Oncology Unit of Pavia Institute, Italy
| | - E Ciruelos
- University Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | - P Karlsson
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - P Neven
- Gynecologic Oncology and Multidisciplinary Breast Center, University Hospitals UZ-Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Climent
- Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Valencia, Spain
| | - B Müller
- Chilean Cooperative Group for Oncologic Research (GOCCHI), Santiago, Chile
| | - W Jochum
- Institute of Pathology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Berne, Switzerland
| | - H Bonnefoi
- Institut Bergonié Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Université de Bordeaux, INSERM U1218, Bordeaux, France; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium
| | - S Martino
- The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, USA
| | - N E Davidson
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
| | - C Geyer
- Houston Methodist Cancer Center, NRG Oncology, Houston, USA
| | - S K Chia
- BC Cancer and Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Vancouver, Canada
| | - J N Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - R Coleman
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cancer Research Network, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - C Solbach
- Breast Center, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - B Thürlimann
- Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Berne, Switzerland; Breast Center, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland
| | - M Colleoni
- Division of Medical Senology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - A S Coates
- International Breast Cancer Study Group and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - A Goldhirsch
- International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG), Bern Switzerland and IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - G F Fleming
- Section of Hematology Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
| | - P A Francis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - T P Speed
- Bioinformatics Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - M M Regan
- Division of Biostatistics, International Breast Cancer Study Group Statistical Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - S Loi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Leon-Ferre RA, Polley MY, Liu H, Kalari KR, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Cafourek V, Negron V, Ingle JN, Thompson KJ, Tang X, Barman P, Carlson E, Visscher DW, Carter JC, Couch FJ, Goetz MP. Abstract P3-08-01: Characteristics, outcomes and prognostic factors of luminal androgen receptor (LAR) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p3-08-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The LAR subtype is a genomically distinct subset of TNBC. Using a large cohort of non-metastatic TNBC patients (pts) with long term follow-up, we sought to further characterize the clinicopathologic features and outcomes of LAR vs non-LAR TNBC.
Methods: From a cohort of 9982 women with surgically-treated non-metastatic breast cancer, 605 met criteria for TNBC (ER/PR<1% and HER2-negative) by central pathology. RNA extracted from 304 FFPE tumor specimens using the HighPure RNA extraction kit was subjected to TruSeq RNA Access library preparation and sequencing on a HiSeq2500. Adequate RNA was available for 283 pts. Tumors were classified as LAR or non-LAR using a shrunken centroid model, CABAL (Clustering Among BAsal and Luminal androgen receptor). In addition to previously described analyses [Leon-Ferre et al, Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017], immunohistochemical (IHC) androgen receptor (AR) staining was performed and the impact of various parameters on invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models.
Results: 58 (20%) tumors were classified as LAR and 225 (80%) as non-LAR. Compared to non-LAR, LAR pts were older (mean age 65 vs 54) and more often postmenopausal (79%vs53%), both p=0.01. Apocrine histology was more common among LAR tumors (21%vs0%), which were also lower grade (grade3: 69%vs95%) and had lower Ki-67 (Ki-67>15%: 64%vs82%), all p<0.01. Additionally, LAR tumors had lower median stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs, 20%vs25%) and were less frequently lymphocyte-predominant [≥50% stromal or intratumoral TILs (19%vs32%)], although neither reached statistical significance. AR IHC was available for 223 of 283 tumors. Median AR IHC score in LAR was 65% (range 0-100%) vs 0% (range 0-90%) in non-LAR. T/N stage, surgery type, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (AdjCT) or radiotherapy were similar between LAR and non-LAR. LAR pts had shorter IDFS and OS compared to non-LAR (5.6 vs 11.8 yrs and 10.8 vs 20.8 yrs, respectively), although this did not reach statistical significance. Test of proportional hazard assumption was not significant for IDFS or OS (p = 0.30 and 0.09). IDFS estimates were numerically higher in LAR vs non-LAR (80.2%vs70.5%,p = 0.92) at 3yrs post-diagnosis; whereas the opposite was true (40.9%vs55.6%,p = 0.07) after 10yrs. OS estimates at 3 and 5yrs were similar between LAR and non-LAR, but at 10yrs OS was inferior in LAR (40.9%vs66.4%,p = 0.24). In a univariate analysis including both LAR and non-LAR, older age, higher N stage, lower TILs and absence of AdjCT were associated with poorer IDFS and OS. In a multivariate analysis, higher N stage and absence of AdjCT remained associated with both poorer IDFS and OS; while lower stromal TILs were associated with poorer IDFS (p=0.01), and with a trend towards poorer OS (p=0.07).
Conclusions: LAR TNBCs occurred in older women, were lower grade, and had lower TIL density than nonLAR tumors. While significant differences in IDFS or OS were not demonstrated, LAR pts exhibited a numerically lower risk of a disease event at 3yrs, but higher risk by 10yrs compared to nonLAR pts. In the entire cohort, higher N stage, absence of AdjCT and lower TILs were independently associated with poorer outcomes.
Citation Format: Leon-Ferre RA, Polley M-Y, Liu H, Kalari KR, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Cafourek V, Negron V, Ingle JN, Thompson KJ, Tang X, Barman P, Carlson E, Visscher DW, Carter JC, Couch FJ, Goetz MP. Characteristics, outcomes and prognostic factors of luminal androgen receptor (LAR) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - H Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | - MC Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | - X Tang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Thompson KJ, Alaparthi T, Sinnwell JP, Carlson EE, Tang X, Bockol M, Vedell PT, Ingle JN, Suman V, Weinshilboum RM, Wang L, Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Goetz MP. Abstract P1-03-04: Molecular subtyping of androgen receptor-positive patients using gene expression profiles. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p1-03-04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and unsupervised clustering approaches using gene expression data have identified 3-6 distinct subtypes of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). A genomically and clinically distinct subtype of TNBC is referred to as LAR (Luminal Androgen Receptor). Tumors with this subtype typically express high levels of the AR and exhibit alterations within genes involved in the PI3K pathway (e.g. PIK3CA mutations). Prospective studies are underway using drugs that target the AR alone or in combination with PI3K and CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Given the importance of accurately identifying this subtype, we sought to develop an online tool that uses submitted gene expression data to confidently characterize LAR samples by corroborating the classification with previously published clustering approaches.
Methods: We have investigated TNBC RNA-Seq data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) breast cancer study (N=123 samples) by cluster analysis. Analysis of the average silhouette width in both biased and unbiased K-means clustering approaches demonstrated LAR and basal as two distinct and significant clusters. A shrunken centroid model of 426 differentially expressed genes, named as CABAL (Clustering Among BAsal and Luminal androgen receptor), was constructed by comparing LAR and basal subtypes.
Results: We applied the CABAL model to classify the four TNBC microarray datasets that were previously used in clustering experiments as well as an independent RNA-Seq data cohort. Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) and fuzzy clustering were applied to the samples (N=1046). Clustering similarity among the methods was assessed with the adjusted rand index, and CABAL demonstrated significant similarity with both fuzzy and NMF clustering methods. Similarly, hierarchical clustering analysis performed on the pooled cohort of 1046 samples recapitulated the CABAL classification with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.91.
Conclusions: Confident and robust identification of samples with the LAR phenotype is paramount in the assessment of clinical associations and therapeutic efficacy. To facilitate LAR identification, we have provided a web-based prediction tool of the CABAL classification, integrated with the NMF and fuzzy clustering results to identify candidate LAR samples. The end user is provided with the pair-wise adjusted rand indexes, thus reinforcing in the clustering characterizations. Further, our online LAR depiction tool provides a set of graphical and tabular summaries, which will be illustrated, while providing additional molecular characterizations of the PAM50 and Metabric classifications. The availability of this tool could advance the genomic research and treatment of TNBC patients.
Citation Format: Thompson KJ, Alaparthi T, Sinnwell JP, Carlson EE, Tang X, Bockol M, Vedell PT, Ingle JN, Suman V, Weinshilboum RM, Wang L, Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Goetz MP. Molecular subtyping of androgen receptor-positive patients using gene expression profiles [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-04.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - X Tang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kizub D, Miao J, Stopeck A, Thompson P, Paterson AH, Clemons M, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Barlow W, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow JR. Abstract P1-17-03: Statin use, site of recurrence, and survival among post-menopausal women taking bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (SWOG S0307). Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p1-17-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose: Statins may mediate suppression of molecular pathways conferring benefit in cancer. Statins have shown anti-tumor effects in preclinical studies and have been associated with decreased recurrence and improved disease-specific survival. While designed to target cholesterol biosynthesis, statins can also have liver, bone and brain effects. We collected data on statin use in the S0307 adjuvant bisphosphonate trial to test the hypothesis that statin use may decrease risk of recurrence to liver, bone and brain as well as second primary (contralateral) breast cancers, and may act synergistically with bisphosphonates to decrease the risk of recurrence to bone.
Patients and Methods: In S0307, 6097 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III breast cancer who had undergone surgery and were receiving adjuvant systemic therapy were randomized to receive zoledronic acid, clodronate, or ibandronate for 3 years. No significant difference was found in disease-free survival (DFS) among the 3 groups, including a sub-analysis of patients > age 55. Statin use was infrequent in younger women in S0307, consequently we analyzed statin use in those > age 55. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine which variables were independently associated with DFS and to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results: Among women aged ≥ 55 years, 684 (27%) reported taking a statin at baseline and 1,848 did not. Both groups were similar in terms of hormone receptor and HER2 status (p = 0.82). Median age in the statin group was 64.3 versus 61.0 years in the no statin group, mean BMI 31.2 v. 29.5, mean tumor size 2.1cm v. 2.3cm, negative lymph nodes 60% v. 54%, Stage I disease 47% v. 36%, and receipt of chemotherapy 62% v. 71% (all p < 0.01). In the statin group, 122 (17.8%) experienced a DFS event compared to 313 (16.9%) in the no statin group (HR 1.18, CI 0.95-1.46). No difference was observed by statin use in overall recurrence (p=0.28), distant recurrence (p=0.64), or recurrences to the bone (p=0.64), liver (p=0.38) or brain (p=0.65) at initial recurrence. There was no synergy between statin use and specific bisphosphonates.
Recurrence and statin useOutcomeGroup 1: On stan at baseline n=684Group 2: No statin at baseline n=1848DFS events122 (17.8%)313 (16.9%)Died without recurrence51 7.5%)97 (5.2%)Recurrence71 (10.4%)216 (11.7%)Contralateral breast cancer9 (1.3%)17 (0.9%)Distant recurrence48 (7%)157 (8.5%)Bone as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)31 (65%)76 (48%)Liver as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)6 (13%)24 (16%)Brain/CNS as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)5 (10%)17 (11%)
Conclusions: We found no evidence that statins reduce risk of second primary breast cancers or distant metastases among post-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Despite promising preclinical data, they did not appear to act in synergy with a specific bisphosphonate. Though women in the statin group had less advanced disease at study entry, statin use was not associated with improved DFS. Results are limited by lack of information about type of statin used, adherence, or initiation of statin in control group.
Citation Format: Kizub D, Miao J, Stopeck A, Thompson P, Paterson AH, Clemons M, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Barlow W, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow JR. Statin use, site of recurrence, and survival among post-menopausal women taking bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (SWOG S0307) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-17-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Kizub
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - J Miao
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - A Stopeck
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - P Thompson
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - AH Paterson
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - M Clemons
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - EC Dees
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - JN Ingle
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - CI Falkson
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - W Barlow
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - JR Gralow
- The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA; SWOG Statistical Center, Seattle, WA; Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, NY; Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, AB, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Jones CJ, Goetz MP, Ingle JN, Hawse JR. Abstract P5-04-05: Glucocorticoid receptor activation inhibits proliferation of endoxifen resistant breast cancer cells and resensitizes cells to hormonal therapy. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p5-04-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Despite the prevalent treatment options for ERα-positive breast cancer patients, and their initial efficacy for many women, ERα-positive disease still accounts for more breast cancer related deaths than any other subtype. Relapse in these patients is largely due to the development of resistance to anti-estrogen therapies such as tamoxifen. While tamoxifen and its resistance mechanisms have been extensively studied from both the bench and the bedside, relatively little is known about its active metabolite endoxifen. Our group has provided evidence that endoxifen is the most potent and clinically relevant metabolite of tamoxifen, suggesting that its characterization may be crucial to understanding tamoxifen resistance.
Methods: We have developed novel endoxifen resistant MCF7 and T47D cell lines through chronic exposure to endoxifen during a period of 12-24 months. Using these models and their respective controls, we compared global gene expression profiles of endoxifen resistant cells to tamoxifen resistant cells and found marked differences between the two models. Additionally, we subjected treatment naïve cells to a genome-wide, CRISPR-mediated knockout screen to identify genes, and their associated pathways, that are likely involved in mediating endoxifen resistance.
Results: Analysis of CRISPR guide RNAs enriched or depleted in response to chronic endoxifen treatment revealed that disruption of genes regulated by dexamethasone (Dex), a potent glucocorticoid receptor (GR) agonist, enhanced cells' ability to survive and proliferate in the presence of endoxifen. These data suggest that GR activation may inhibit endoxifen resistance, and that treatment of resistant cells with Dex may restore endoxifen efficacy. Indeed, Dex treatment significantly inhibited the proliferation rates of endoxifen resistant cells by 50-60% with little to no inhibitory effects in endoxifen sensitive models. Further, Dex was shown to synergize with endoxifen in resistant cells to further suppress cell proliferation, implying that Dex treatment could be utilized as an effective therapy for endocrine resistant disease. Conditioned media harvested from cells chronically exposed to Dex also resulted in substantial inhibition of endoxifen resistant cell proliferation rates. To explore potential mechanisms of these effects, we performed RNA-seq on both treatment-naïve and endoxifen resistant cells following Dex treatment. Out of 246 genes significantly regulated by Dex in endoxifen resistant cells, we identified 61 genes that were not differentially regulated in treatment naïve cells. These genes may provide insights into the mechanisms of GR activity specific to endoxifen resistant cells.
Conclusions: To our knowledge, we have developed the first models of endoxifen resistance and have demonstrated that global transcriptomic changes that occur during this process are substantially different than those observed in tamoxifen resistant models. We have shown that activation of GR signaling elicits significant growth-inhibitory effects specifically in the setting of endoxifen resistance. These data identify the GR pathway as a potential novel therapeutic target for the treatment of endocrine resistant breast cancer.
Citation Format: Jones CJ, Goetz MP, Ingle JN, Hawse JR. Glucocorticoid receptor activation inhibits proliferation of endoxifen resistant breast cancer cells and resensitizes cells to hormonal therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-04-05.
Collapse
|
6
|
Eagan RT, Creagan ET, Ingle JN, Rubin J, Frytak S, Kvols LK, Fleming TR. VP-16, Cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin and Cis-platinum (V:CAP-I) in Patients with Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. Tumori 2018; 65:105-9. [PMID: 442215 DOI: 10.1177/030089167906500112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
In an attempt to improve upon the 42% regression rate of the CAP-I regimen in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung, VP-16 was added to that regimen. VP-16, as a single agent, had a response rate of 12.5% (3/24) in a similar group of patients. The new regimen, V:CAP-I, had a tumor regression rate of 35% (7/20) and an estimated median survival of 171 days. Hence, we were unable to conclude that the addition of VP-16 to the CAP-I regimen statistically improved the regression rate of the CAP-I regimen.
Collapse
|
7
|
Leon-Ferre RA, Polley MY, Liu H, Gilbert J, Cafourek V, Hillman D, Negron V, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Ingle JN, Kalari K, Couch FJ, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Abstract P3-05-06: Prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and its relation to stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p3-05-06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: While TNBC remains the most aggressive type of breast cancer (BC), substantial heterogeneity in biology and outcomes exists among TNBC subtypes. Historically, risk stratification of TNBC has been based on anatomic factors such as tumor size, nodal involvement and presence of distant metastases. However, these features alone fail to accurately predict outcomes. Tumor immune infiltration (sTILs) and distribution of immune cell subsets in the perip heral blood (NLR) have emerged as variables reported to be associated with outcomes in TNBC. We sought to evaluate whether NLR and sTILs provided independent prognostic information in TNBC.
Methods: From a cohort of 9,982 women who underwent BC surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between Jan 1985 and Dec 2012, we identified 605 centrally-confirmed TNBC tumors. Patients (pts) with prior BC, bilateral BC, non-invasive disease, stage IV, neoadjuvant therapy, endocrine therapy, or adenoid cystic histology were excluded. For eligible tumors, clinical and pathologic variables were evaluated, including peripheral blood NLR and central assessment of sTILs per the 2014 International TILs Working Group recommendations. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between NLR and sTILs and constructed Cox Proportional Hazards Models to evaluate their association with invasive-disease free (IDFS) and overall survival (OS). NLR and sTILs were both analyzed as continuous variables.
Results: Most pts had T1-2 (95%) and N0-1 disease (86%). Median OS follow-up was 10.6yrs. Median IDFS was 12yrs (95%CI 10.2-16.7) and median OS was 18.8yrs (95%CI 15.6-20.8). NLR and sTILs were available in 408 and 599 pts, respectively. The median NLR and sTIL content were 2.29 (0.14-10.50) and 20% (0-90%), respectively. NLR and sTILs were poorly correlated (PCC 0.0237). On univariate analysis (UVA), a higher NLR was associated with worse IDFS (HR 1.13; 95%CI 1.02-1.26, p=0.02) and OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31, p=0.01). Each 1% increment in sTILs was associated with improved IDFS (HR 0.99; 95%CI 0.98-0.99, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00, p<0.001). Among pts with high sTILs (≥20%), a higher NLR remained significantly associated with worse IDFS (HR 1.21; 95%CI 1.05-1.38, p=0.007) and OS (HR 1.25; 95%CI 1.09-1.44, p=0.001). In contrast, among pts with low sTILs (<20%), NLR was not associated with IDFS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89-1.28, p=0.49) or OS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.88-1.30, p=0.49). The interaction test between NLR and sTILs did not reach statistical significance. A multivariate analysis (MVA; including age, menopausal status, histologic subtype, grade, tumor size, nodal stage, Ki-67, NLR, sTILs, adjuvant chemotherapy, type of surgery and adjuvant radiation) showed that sTILs remained independently associated with IDFS (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.97-1.0, p=0.019) and OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.0, p=0.044), whereas NLR did not.
Conclusions: A lower NLR and a higher sTIL content were each associated with improved IDFS and OS among pts with nonmetastatic TNBC on UVA. However, when evaluated on a MVA, only sTILs remained independently associated with IDFS and OS. Our data suggest that the effect of sTILs on outcomes may not be modified by the NLR.
Citation Format: Leon-Ferre RA, Polley M-Y, Liu H, Gilbert J, Cafourek V, Hillman D, Negron V, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Ingle JN, Kalari K, Couch FJ, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and its relation to stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-05-06.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - H Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | - MC Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Cairns J, Ingle JN, Shepherd LE, Kubo M, Goetz MP, Weinshilboum RM, Kalari KR, Wang L. Abstract P5-07-01: LncRNA MIR2052HG regulates ERα level and endocrine resistance through LMTK3 by recruiting early growth response protein 1. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p5-07-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A GWAS for the MA.27 aromatase inhibitors (AIs) adjuvant trial (4,406 controls and 252 cases) identified variant (V) SNPs in a long noncoding (lnc) RNA, MIR2052HG, that were associated with longer breast cancer free interval (HR= 0.37, P= 2.15E-07). V SNPs (MAF= 0.32 to 0.42) were associated with lower MIR2052HG and ERα expression in the presence of AIs. MIR2052HG maintained ERα both by promoting AKT/FOXO3-mediated ESR1 transcription and by limiting ubiquitin-mediated ERα degradation. (Cancer Res 76:7012-23, 2016). Our goal was to further elucidate MIR2052HG's mechanism of action.
METHODS: RNA-Binding Protein Immunoprecipitation (RBPI) assays were performed to demonstrate that the transcription factor, early growth response protein 1 (EGR1), worked together with MIR2052HG to regulate lemur tyrosine kinase-3 (LMTK3) transcription in MCF7/AC1 and CAMA-1 cells. The location of EGR1 on the LMTK3 gene locus was mapped using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays. The co-localization of MIR2052HG RNA and the LMTK3 gene locus was determined using RNA-DNA dual fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). SNP effects were evaluated using a panel of human lymphoblastoid cell lines.
RESULTS: TCGA analysis revealed LMTK3 and MIR2052HG expression were highly correlated in ERα-positive breast cancer patients. We found that the MIR2052HG transcript was located in the LMTK3 gene locus by RNA-DNA FISH. Among all of the 12 potential LMTK3 transcription factors identified in the Encode database that were examined by RBPI, only EGR1 showed an interaction with MIR2052HG. CHIP assays confirmed EGR1 binding to the two putative EGR1 binding sites in LMTK3 gene.Depletion of MIR2052HG reduced the binding of EGR1 to the LMTK3 promoter and decreased LMTK3 expression, suggesting that it might function as a scaffold. Mechanistically, decreased LMTK3 levels further increased protein kinase C (PKC) activity and downstream AKT activity, leading to reduced ESR1 mRNA levels via increased pFOXO3. At the protein level, in MIR2052HG depleted cells, increased PKC activity increased the phosphorylation of MEK, ERK, and RSK1, leading to increased ERα phosphorylation at Ser167 and increased ERα degradation. Conversely, overexpression of LMTK3 in MIR2052HG depleted cells reversed these phenotypes. MIR2052HG regulated LMTK3 and ERα expression in a SNP- dependent fashion: the MIR2052HG V SNP, relative to wild-type (WT) genotype, increased LMTK3/ERα expression in response to androstenedione due to increased binding between EGR1 and the LMTK3 promoter in LCLs. However, AI treatment reduced this binding in MIR2052HG variant cells but increased binding in WT cells, resulting in decreased LMTK3/ERα in V cells and increased expression in WT cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a model in which the protective MIR2052HG variant genotype regulates LMTK3 via MIR2052HG/EGR1, and LMTK3 regulates ERα stability via the PKC/MEK/ERK/RSK1 axis. This regulation may explain the effect of the MIR2052HG variant genotype on cell proliferation and response to AIs in MA.27. These findings provide new insight into the mechanism of action of MIR2052HG and suggest that LMTK3 may be a new therapeutic target in ERα-positive breast cancer patients treated with AIs.
Citation Format: Cairns J, Ingle JN, Shepherd LE, Kubo M, Goetz MP, Weinshilboum RM, Kalari KR, Wang L. LncRNA MIR2052HG regulates ERα level and endocrine resistance through LMTK3 by recruiting early growth response protein 1 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-07-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Cairns
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - LE Shepherd
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - M Kubo
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - RM Weinshilboum
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - KR Kalari
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada; Riken Center for Integrative Medical Science, Yokohama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Fleming G, Francis PA, Láng I, Ciruelos EM, Bellet M, Bonnefoi HR, Climent MA, Pavesi L, Burstein HJ, Martino S, Davidson NE, Geyer CE, Walley BA, Coleman RE, Kerbrat P, Buchholz S, Ingle JN, Rabaglio-Poretti M, Colleoni M, Regan MM. Abstract GS4-03: Randomized comparison of adjuvant tamoxifen (T) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC): Update of the SOFT trial. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-gs4-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The primary results of SOFT at 5.6 years median follow-up found adding OFS to T did not provide a significant benefit in the overall study population of premenopausal women with HR+ BC (Francis et al, NEJM 2015). For those women at sufficient risk for recurrence to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) and who remained premenopausal, the addition of OFS improved disease outcomes. Follow-up was immature for overall survival (OS). We report a planned update with visit cut-off of 31Dec16 after 8 yrs median follow-up.
Methods: SOFT randomized premenopausal women with HR+ BC from Nov 2003 to Jan 2011 to 5 yrs of T vs T+OFS vs Exemestane(E)+OFS. OFS was by choice of GnRH agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy or ovarian irradiation. SOFT was stratified by the use of prior CT; 47% received no CT and 53% remained premenopausal after prior CT, determined by premenopausal estradiol level within 8 months of CT completion. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (DFS; randomization until invasive local, regional, distant recurrence or contralateral breast; invasive second malignancy; death). Secondary endpoints included invasive breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and OS. NCT00066690.
Results: DFS for patients assigned T+OFS (n=1015) was significantly improved over T (n=1018; HR=0.76 [95%CI 0.62-0.93]) and 8yr DFS was 83.2% vs 78.9%, respectively; BCFI and DRFI results were supportive (see Table). Hazard ratios for these 3 endpoints showed no heterogeneity by use of prior CT. For patients with prior CT, 8yr DFS was 76.7% with T+OFS vs 71.4% with T (Δ=5.3%); in those without CT, 8yr DFS was 90.6% vs 87.4% (Δ=3.2%). E+OFS (n=1014) improved outcomes relative to T (Table); 8yr DFS for E+OFS was 85.9% (80.4% with use of prior CT and 92.5% for those without CT). OS was improved with T+OFS vs T (8yr OS 93.3% vs 91.5%). 8yr OS was 92.1% with E+OFS. 201/225 deaths occurred in women with prior CT. For women without CT there have been 10, 5 and 9 deaths in the T+OFS, T and E+OFS groups (total n=1419), respectively, only half of these deaths after breast cancer event.
N. EventsHazard Ratio (95% CI)Endpoint(3 arms)T+OFS vs TE+OFS vs TDFS5180.76 (0.62-0.93) P=0.0090.65 (0.53-0.81)BCFI4370.76 (0.61-0.95)0.64 (0.51-0.81)DRFI3060.86 (0.66-1.13)0.73 (0.55-0.96)OS2250.67 (0.48-0.92)0.85 (0.62-1.15)
Overall toxicity was worse with T+ OFS than with T, including 32% vs 25% grade 3+ targeted AEs. Early cessation of tamoxifen occurred for 19% assigned T+OFS and 22% of women assigned T; the cumulative incidence of early cessation of triptorelin on the T+OFS arm was 23% by 4yrs. Early cessation of exemestane occurred for 28% and of triptorelin for 21% by 4yrs on the E+OFS arm.
Conclusions: With additional follow-up to a median of 8yrs, SOFT further supports the value of OFS for some premenopausal women. Follow-up continues, which will further clarify the safety and the benefit of OFS for late recurrence and overall survival. Oncologists appear to be able to select a low risk group (no chemotherapy) for whom treatment escalation is unlikely to improve survival.
Citation Format: Fleming G, Francis PA, Láng I, Ciruelos EM, Bellet M, Bonnefoi HR, Climent MA, Pavesi L, Burstein HJ, Martino S, Davidson NE, Geyer Jr CE, Walley BA, Coleman RE, Kerbrat P, Buchholz S, Ingle JN, Rabaglio-Poretti M, Colleoni M, Regan MM. Randomized comparison of adjuvant tamoxifen (T) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC): Update of the SOFT trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Fleming
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - PA Francis
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - I Láng
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - EM Ciruelos
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - M Bellet
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - HR Bonnefoi
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - MA Climent
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - L Pavesi
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - HJ Burstein
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - S Martino
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - NE Davidson
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - CE Geyer
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - BA Walley
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - RE Coleman
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - P Kerbrat
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - S Buchholz
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - JN Ingle
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - M Rabaglio-Poretti
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - M Colleoni
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| | - MM Regan
- SOFT Investigators, International Breast Cancer Study Group, Breast International Group, and North American Breast Cancer Group
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Polley MYC, Leon-Ferre RA, Liu H, Gilbert J, Cafourek V, Hillman DW, Negron V, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Ingle JN, Kalari K, Couch F, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Abstract P1-06-07: Mayo clinic TNBC outcome calculator: A clinical calculator to predict disease relapse and survival in women with triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p1-06-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype with substantial risks of disease recurrence. While cytotoxic chemotherapy is commonly administered and reduces recurrence, disease outcomes vary considerably and few prognostic tools are available for risk stratification for TNBC patients. We constructed and validated clinical calculators for invasive-disease free survival (IDFS) and overall survival (OS) for TNBC and compared their performance against AJCC-based models which include only tumor size and nodal status.
Methods: From a surgical cohort of 9,982 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery at Mayo Clinic between January 1985 and December 2012, 605 centrally reviewed TNBC patients were identified and used to construct Cox models for IDFS and OS. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. Variables considered included age, menopausal status, tumor size, nodal status, Nottingham grade, type of breast surgery (mastectomy vs. lumpectomy), adjuvant radiation therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, Ki67, stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Missing values were imputed using single imputation with all variables (including outcomes) included in the imputation model. Backward step-down procedure was used for model selections. The final models were internally validated for calibration and discrimination using bootstrapping methods and compared with AJCC-based models.
Results: For both IDFS and OS, higher sTIL's, less extensive nodal involvement, use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and lower NLR were significant predictors of improved clinical outcomes. Premenopausal status and younger age were additionally predictive of improved IDFS and OS, respectively. Models for IDFS and OS have good calibration and are associated with bias-corrected C-indices of 0.68 and 0.71, respectively, as compared with C-indices of 0.59 and 0.62 for AJCC-based models.
Conclusions: Our data indicate that a clinical calculator that includes sTIL's, NLR, menopausal status, age, nodal involvement as well as chemotherapy use can provide significantly greater prediction of clinical risk than tumor size and nodal status alone. These tools may be used to identify TNBC patients at elevated risk of disease relapse and to aid physician's communication with patients regarding their long-term disease outlook and planning treatment strategies. External validation is required to further evaluate broader applicability of this tool, which was developed utilizing a single-institutional experience.
Citation Format: Polley M-YC, Leon-Ferre RA, Liu H, Gilbert J, Cafourek V, Hillman DW, Negron V, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Ingle JN, Kalari K, Couch F, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Mayo clinic TNBC outcome calculator: A clinical calculator to predict disease relapse and survival in women with triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-06-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - H Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | - MC Liu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Yerushalmi R, Dong B, Chapman JW, Goss PE, Pollak MN, Burnell MJ, Levine MN, Bramwell VHC, Pritchard KI, Whelan TJ, Ingle JN, Shepherd LE, Parulekar WR, Han L, Ding K, Gelmon KA. Impact of baseline BMI and weight change in CCTG adjuvant breast cancer trials. Ann Oncol 2018; 28:1560-1568. [PMID: 28379421 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2016] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We hypothesized that increased baseline BMI and BMI change would negatively impact clinical outcomes with adjuvant breast cancer systemic therapy. Methods Data from chemotherapy trials MA.5 and MA.21; endocrine therapy MA.12, MA.14 and MA.27; and trastuzumab HERA/MA.24 were analyzed. The primary objective was to examine the effect of BMI change on breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) landmarked at 5 years; secondary objectives included BMI changes at 1 and 3 years; BMI changes on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS); and effects of baseline BMI. Stratified analyses included trial therapy and composite trial stratification factors. Results In pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal chemotherapy trials (N = 2793), baseline BMI did not impact any endpoint and increased BMI from baseline did not significantly affect BCFI (P = 0.85) after 5 years although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.03) and DSS (P = 0.07) after 1 year. BMI increase by 3 and 5 years was associated with better DSS (P = 0.01; 0.01) and OS (P = 0.003; 0.05). In pre-menopausal endocrine therapy trial MA.12 (N = 672), patients with higher baseline BMI had worse BCFI (P = 0.02) after 1 year, worse DSS (P = 0.05; 0.004) after 1 and 5 years and worse OS (P = 0.01) after 5 years. Increased BMI did not impact BCFI (P = 0.90) after 5 years, although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.01) after 1 year. In post-menopausal endocrine therapy trials MA.14 and MA.27 (N = 8236), baseline BMI did not significantly impact outcome for any endpoint. BMI change did not impact BCFI or DSS after 1 or 3 years, although a mean increased BMI of 0.3 was associated with better OS (P = 0.02) after 1 year. With the administration of trastuzumab (N = 1395) baseline BMI and BMI change did not significantly impact outcomes. Conclusions Higher baseline BMI and BMI increases negatively affected outcomes only in pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal trial patients. Otherwise, BMI increases similar to those expected in healthy women either did not impact outcome or were associated with better outcomes. Clinical Trials numbers CAN-NCIC-MA5; National Cancer Institute (NCI)-V90-0027; MA.12-NCT00002542; MA.14-NCT00002864; MA.21-NCT00014222; HERA, NCT00045032;CAN-NCIC-MA24; MA-27-NCT00066573.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Yerushalmi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva and Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - B Dong
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - J W Chapman
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - P E Goss
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, USA
| | - M N Pollak
- Department of Medical Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal
| | - M J Burnell
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John
| | - M N Levine
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Center, Hamilton, Ontario
| | - V H C Bramwell
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Alberta Health Services and University of Calgary, Calgary
| | - K I Pritchard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - T J Whelan
- Department of Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Center, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
| | - J N Ingle
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - L E Shepherd
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - W R Parulekar
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - L Han
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - K Ding
- Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG; Formerly, NCIC Clinical Trials Group), Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - K A Gelmon
- Department of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Abstract PD7-07: Discovery of molecular predictors of late breast cancer specific events (BCSE) in ER+, node+ breast cancer – new transcriptome expression whole gene analysis of the phase III adjuvant trial SWOG S8814. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-pd7-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unique genes and pathways were identified for prognosis on tamoxifen (T, 5 yrs) and prediction on CAF-T vs T in S8814 using whole transcriptome RNA-Seq from archival FFPE tissue. (Albain, et al; Cherbavaz, et al; SABCS 2015) Discovery was robust for early DFS events but sparse for late. The aims of this new analysis were to 1) utilize a new endpoint BCSE for gene discovery of late events, prognosis and prediction and 2) add intronic counts to the previous exonic results to define whole genes impacting on late BCSE.
METHODS: Charts of patients (pts) on CAF-T (212) vs T (142) were reviewed to define the BCSE endpoint (local/regional, contralateral, distant). Deaths without BC were treated as competing risks. BCSE models (including metagenes) of late prognosis and prediction used cumulative incidence functions. Consolidated intronic regions counts within genes were added to exonic regions counts. Using these “whole gene” (WG) counts, association of gene expression with time to BCSE was assessed by Cox regression. A multiple WG score (MWGS) for BCSE prognosis beyond 5 yrs (to 12.5 yrs) was constructed and evaluated for 1-3 and 4+ node (N) groups. False discovery rate was controlled at 10%.
RESULTS: More exons and WG were discovered for prognosis on T alone over 12.5 yrs with the BCSE endpoint than DFS. For prognosis of late BCSE after 5 yrs, more genes were discovered using WG (n=111) than by exons (n=9). There were significantly fewer genes for late BCSE on CAF-T (8, WG; 0, exons). The functions of WG prognostic for late BCSE were: cell cycle/proliferation-26 genes, chromosome segregation/mitotic spindle-22, DNA repair/maintenance-10, transcriptional/translational control-5, cell adhesion/migration-4, immune-3, diverse/unknown-32 and growth factor/hormone receptor signaling-9 (this group was only found by WGs, not exons). Of these 111 WG, a MWGS prognostic for late BCSE on T used 57 previously discovered genes pre-specified for this analysis. Probability of BCSE beyond 5 yrs for low vs high MWGS was 8% vs 21% in N1-3+ and 17% vs 42% in N4+. Late prognosis on T differed by low vs high risk defined in a metagene model: cumulative BCSE at year 10 was 0% vs 47% (low vs high risk, p=0.001). Prediction of 10-yr incidence of BCSE varied by risk level by treatment in a metagene model: low risk- CAF-T=47%, T=0% (p=0.045); high risk- CAF-T=35%, T=45% (p=0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Gene discovery for prognosis of late BCSE is enhanced with a novel WG transcriptome expression approach. Use of chemotherapy (CT) before T significantly attenuated gene discovery, so that molecular tools for decisions on extending endocrine therapy (ET) may not be reliable in a setting of prior CT. Some pts on ET for 5 yrs may not require either longer ET or CT, given a N+ cohort was defined with no BCSE observed over 12.5 yrs. For prediction of CT benefit, CAF-T appeared to be inferior to T in a low risk metagene model for BCSE. In sum, these results add more evidence that ET alone may be sufficient (perhaps better) in select N+ settings. Validation in SWOG S1007 (RxPONDER) is planned.
SUPPORT: NCI CA180888, 180819, 180821, 180820, 180863; in part, Genomic Health, Inc.
Citation Format: Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Discovery of molecular predictors of late breast cancer specific events (BCSE) in ER+, node+ breast cancer – new transcriptome expression whole gene analysis of the phase III adjuvant trial SWOG S8814 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- KS Albain
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - MR Crager
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - WE Barlow
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - FL Baehner
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - A Bergamaschi
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JM Rae
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - PM Ravdin
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - D Tripathy
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JR Gralow
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - RB Livingston
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - CK Osborne
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JN Ingle
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - KI Pritchard
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - NE Davidson
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Carey
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DB Cherbavaz
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - AP Sing
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Shak
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DF Hayes
- Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; NA, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Univeristy of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Reese JM, Bruinsma ES, Suman VJ, Nelson AW, Chernukhin I, Carroll JS, Ingle JN, Goetz MP, Hawse JR. Abstract P3-07-20: Biological functions of ERβ in triple negative breast cancer and its utility as a novel therapeutic drug target. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p3-07-20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for approximately 20% of all breast cancer diagnoses. It is the most aggressive form of breast cancer and clinical management is problematic due to lack of available targeted therapies. We have shown that approximately 30% of all TNBCs express estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), a ligand binding transcription factor, and a potential drug target for patients with this form of the disease.
Methods: Using novel ERβ-expressing TN cell lines developed in our laboratory, we assessed the impacts of ERβ on proliferation, invasion, migration, and alterations in cell cycle progression following estrogen and ERβ-specific agonist treatment. We also characterized the ERβ transcriptome and cistrome in these models through microarray and ChIP-Seq, respectively. Finally, we determined the tumoral response of cell line xenografts and PDXs treated with 17β-estradiol.
Results: We found that both estrogen and multiple ERβ-specific agonists elicit significant anti-tumor effects in ERβ+ TNBC cell lines and tumor xenografts. Activation of ERβ with estrogen and ERβ-specific agonists resulted in inhibition of cell proliferation primarily through a G1/S phase cell cycle arrest. Substantial reductions in cell migration and invasion were also observed following treatment. Microarray studies revealed that ERβ differentially regulated the expression of approximately 1000 genes following estrogen treatment. Of these genes, the most striking effects were observed in a family of small secreted cysteine protease inhibitors known as cystatins, which were highly induced following ERβ activation. ChIP-Seq and ChIP-PCR identified ERβ binding sites in the promoter region of each cystatin and demonstrated ERβ-mediated alterations in chromatin marks and recruitment of PolII around these promoters. We found that cystatins directly interact with TGFβ receptor 2 (TGFβR2) and block downstream TGFβ ligand-mediated activation of the canonical signaling pathway. Depletion of cystatins from conditioned media or through siRNA-mediated silencing reduced the ability of ERβ to elicit these anti-tumor effects. In vivo, estrogen treatment of mice harboring ERβ+ TNBC cell line xenografts or PDXs resulted in increased tumoral expression and serum levels of cystatins, and suppressed tumor growth.
Conclusions: Our data demonstrated that estrogen and ERβ-specific agonists elicit anti-cancer effects in ERβ+ TNBC, both in vitro and in vivo. These effects are partially mediated by cystatins which can interact with, and inhibit, canonical TGFβ signaling, a pathway known to drive TNBC progression. Given the lack of targeted therapies for TNBC patients, the present data suggests that estrogen or ERβ-specific agonists offer a novel approach to manage this subset of patients.
Citation Format: Reese JM, Bruinsma ES, Suman VJ, Nelson AW, Chernukhin I, Carroll JS, Ingle JN, Goetz MP, Hawse JR. Biological functions of ERβ in triple negative breast cancer and its utility as a novel therapeutic drug target [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-20.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JM Reese
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - ES Bruinsma
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - VJ Suman
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - AW Nelson
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - I Chernukhin
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - JS Carroll
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - JN Ingle
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - MP Goetz
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| | - JR Hawse
- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Rochester, MN; Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Rochester, MN; Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Rochester, MN; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Oncology, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Abstract S3-02: Molecular predictors of outcome on adjuvant CAF plus tamoxifen (T) vs T in postmenopausal patients (pts) with ER+, node+ breast cancer – Transcriptome expression analysis of the phase III trial SWOG-8814. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-s3-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In SWOG-8814A, pts with ER+ node+ breast cancer and low 21 gene recurrence scores (RS) had good prognosis and no CAF benefit, but high RS predicted longer survival from CAF followed by T (CAF-T) vs T (Albain, Lancet Oncol 2010). The aims of SWOG-8814B were to identify novel genes and networks for 1) prognosis of early and late relapse and 2) prediction of CAF benefit, using whole transcriptome expression analysis with next generation RNA sequencing (NGS).
METHODS: Stored RNA previously extracted for SWOG-8814A (T, CAF-T arms; T, 5 yrs) was analyzed for RNA/library yield (see companion abstract Cherbavaz et al. for methods). Genes were sequenced and expression of mRNA species was related to disease-free survival (DFS) using Cox proportional hazards. Discovery analyses controlled false discovery rate (FDR) at 10%. Genes were identified for prognosis on T and prediction on CAF-T vs T. Networks of genes/pathways were explored. Early (0-5 yrs) and late (5-13+ yrs) time periods were studied. Gene Ontology, Cytoscape, pathway and hierarchical clustering were used for functional gene and metagene analyses.
RESULTS: Of 367 samples, 354 (96%; 142 T, 212 CAF-T; 141 DFS events) had sufficient RNA/library yield, with 20,101 genes sequenced. For prognosis on T, there were 2327 and 568 genes discovered in early and all-yrs follow-up, with only 9 genes prognostic after 5 yrs. Prognosis analyses for residual risk after CAF-T were uninformative. Functional mapping found that genes prognostic for worse DFS were enriched for proliferation (G2M, M-phase), cellular metabolism, DNA repair, stress response and EMT; whereas, those with better DFS involved transcription regulation/repression via zinc finger proteins. Hierarchical clustering (T arm) found significant DFS prognostic metagene signatures for ER-related genes, immune response, ECM/stroma, chromatin remodeling-transcription factor activity and TGFb pathway. All varied for early vs late DFS events. For example, low ER/high stroma expression signatures correlated with high proliferation gene expression and were strongly associated with early events (standardized [st] HR 2.94, p<0.001). Late recurrence was associated with high proliferation, both individually (stHR 1.51, p=.035) and in combination with higher ER expression (stHR 1.51, p=0.09). Fifteen genes predicted CAF benefit (9 better DFS, 6 worse), or 129 genes if FDR relaxed to 20%. Cluster analysis for CAF prediction is ongoing.
CONCLUSIONS: Unique genes, clusters and pathways were identified by NGS of archival material in ER+ N+ breast cancer, including previously unreported signatures. While ER, stroma and proliferation-related signatures were associated with early prognosis, proliferation best predicted worse DFS after 5 yrs. NGS of the primary tumor is most informative for early events in pts with only 5 years of T, with few genes selecting only for late relapse. If validated, these signatures may identify pts with excellent DFS despite positive nodes for endocrine therapy alone as well as others for whom chemotherapy and/or biologics are also required
.
SUPPORT: NCI CA 180888, 180819, 180821, 180820, 180863; in part, Genomic Health, Inc.
Citation Format: Albain KS, Crager MR, Barlow WE, Baehner FL, Bergamaschi A, Rae JM, Ravdin PM, Tripathy D, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Osborne CK, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Davidson NE, Carey LA, Cherbavaz DB, Sing AP, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Hayes DF. Molecular predictors of outcome on adjuvant CAF plus tamoxifen (T) vs T in postmenopausal patients (pts) with ER+, node+ breast cancer – Transcriptome expression analysis of the phase III trial SWOG-8814. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S3-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- KS Albain
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - MR Crager
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - WE Barlow
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - FL Baehner
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - A Bergamaschi
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JM Rae
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - PM Ravdin
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - D Tripathy
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JR Gralow
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - RB Livingston
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - CK Osborne
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JN Ingle
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - KI Pritchard
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - NE Davidson
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Carey
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DB Cherbavaz
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - AP Sing
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Shak
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - GN Hortobagyi
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - DF Hayes
- Loyola Univ Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA; Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA; Genomic Health, Inc. and Univ of California, San Francisco, Redwood City and San Francisco, CA; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Texas Health Science Center Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AR; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Moyer AM, Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, McLaughlin SA, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Sinnwell JP, Carlson EE, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Wieben ED, Ingle JN, Wang L, Weinshilboum RM, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Abstract P4-04-05: Differential mRNA expression patterns in breast tumors with high vs. low quantity of stromal tumor–Infiltrating lymphocytes. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p4-04-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) have prognostic and potentially predictive significance in the (neo)adjuvant treatment of high-risk breast cancer. However, quantitative TIL measurement is not routinely performed. It is unclear why some tumors attract large quantities of TIL while others do not. We sought to confirm the association between TIL and pathologic complete response rate (pCR) and to further use next generation sequencing (NGS) to identify genes and gene pathways associated with the presence/absence of TIL.
Methods: We studied 140 women with high risk stage I-III breast cancer, enrolled in the Breast Cancer Genome Guided Therapy Study (BEAUTY), obtaining serial biopsies for DNA/RNA sequencing and MRI imaging to assess response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with taxane (+/- trastuzumab+/-pertuzumab for HER2+ disease) followed by AC or (F)EC. Diagnostic pre-NAC core needle biopsies and surgical resection specimens post-NAC were available from 110 patients. Stromal TIL were semi-quantitated on a scale of 1-4 (with 1: ≤10/hpf, 2: subtle infiltrate >10/hpf, 3: moderate infiltrate readily visible at low power magnification, 4: dense infiltrate with innumerable lymphocytes). For this analysis, low TIL was defined as scores of 1-2 vs. high defined as 3-4. Using pre-NAC biopsies, RNAseq was performed using the Illumina HiSeq2000 and the Mayo Analysis Pipeline for RNAseq (MAP-Rseq) for quality control, sequence alignment, and gene counts. The quantity of TIL was associated with transcripts across the transcriptome after conditional quantile normalization. Differentially expressed genes were obtained using EdgeR analysis, using a false discovery rate of 0.05, and pathways were evaluated using GAGE methods.
Results: The pCR and residual cancer burden (RCB)-0/I rates by stromal TIL status within each molecular subtype are presented in the table. A diverse spectrum of 1344 genes with differential expression between tumors with high vs. low stromal TIL was identified. The genes with >2.0-fold change (FC) and p<1e-09 included S100A7 (4.49 FC), LCN2 (2.48 FC), and ART3 (2.82 FC) (genes known to be involved in immune regulation), as well as TDRD1 (2.71 FC) (a gene related to ERG [ETS-related gene] expression). In addition, the "regulation of actin cytoskeleton" pathway was upregulated in tumors with high TIL, while the "Hedgehog signaling" and "Wnt signaling" pathways were downregulated.
Molecular SubtypeStromal TILspCR rate n (%)RCB-0/I rateLuminal AHigh------Luminal ALow0/9 (0%)0/9 (0%)Luminal BHigh1/9 (11.1%)1/8 (12.5%)Luminal BLow3/24 (12.5%)6/23 (26.1%)ER+/HER2+High3/9 (33.3%)4/9 (44.4%)ER+/HER2+Low1/6 (16.7%)1/6 (16.7%)ER-/HER2+High8/9 (88.9%)7/7 (100%)ER-/HER2+Low4/8 (50.0%)6/8 (75.0%)Triple NegativeHigh10/19 (52.6%)13/19 (68.4%)Triple NegativeLow7/14 (50.0%)9/13 (69.2%)
Conclusions: We identified genes and gene pathways associated with high TIL expression in breast tumors prior to NAC that provide insight into the interactions between TIL and tumors. TIL can be easily semi-quantitated on H&E and along with these novel biomarkers, may contribute to the personalization of breast cancer therapy.
Citation Format: Moyer AM, Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, McLaughlin SA, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Sinnwell JP, Carlson EE, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Wieben ED, Ingle JN, Wang L, Weinshilboum RM, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Differential mRNA expression patterns in breast tumors with high vs. low quantity of stromal tumor–Infiltrating lymphocytes. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-04-05.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- AM Moyer
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JC Boughey
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KR Kalari
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SA McLaughlin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - A Moreno-Aspitia
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RJ Gray
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JP Sinnwell
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - EE Carlson
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - TJ Dockter
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KN Jones
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SJ Felten
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AL Conners
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - ED Wieben
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RM Weinshilboum
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Visscher
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, McLaughlin SA, Moreno Aspitia A, Moyer AM, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Vedell PT, Tang X, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Hart SN, Visscher DW, Wieben ED, Ingle JN, Hartman AR, Timms K, Elkin E, Jones J, Wang L, Weinshilboum RW, Goetz MP. Abstract P3-07-29: Role of germline BRCA status and tumor homologous recombination (HR) deficiency in response to neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel followed by anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p3-07-29] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Both HR deficiency and BRCA mutation status predict response to platinum-based therapy and BRCA mutation status predicts docetaxel resistance. However, the association of either biomarker with response to the individual elements of either AC or taxanes (T) is unknown since T is commonly given concomitantly with or after anthracyclines (A). We evaluated the association of HRD and BRCA mutation status with response to neoadjuvant weekly T followed by AC or (F)EC in high-risk breast cancer.
Methods: We studied 140 high risk Stage I-III breast cancer patients (pts), enrolled in the breast cancer genome guided therapy study (BEAUTY), obtaining biopsies for DNA/RNA sequencing and MRI imaging to assess response to neoadjuvant weekly T (+trastuzumab+/-pertuzumab for HER2+ disease) followed by AC or (F)EC. Germline BRCA status and HR status of tumor samples (Myriad laboratories) were obtained. HR deficient tumor was defined as HRD score ≥42 or BRCA mutation. MRI response by changes in tumor size after 12 weeks of T was classified by WHO criteria. pCR was defined as ypT0/Tis ypN0. Both MRI response after T and pCR (after T and AC) were examined in terms of germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut vs. gBRCAwt) and tumor HR deficiency.
Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 8 withdrew consent and 2 carboplatin treated pts were excluded. Germline data were available for 124/130 pts. 12 patients had BRCA deleterious germline mutations (4 BRCA1, 8 BRCA2). MRI partial (PR)/complete response (CR) rate to T was 47.3% (95% CI: 37.8-57.0%) in the BRCAwt group and 66.7% (95% CI: 34.9-90.1%) in the BRCAmut group. No MRI CR's were observed in BRCA1 mut pts. In contrast, pCR rate was 50% in the 12 gBRCAmut pts (95% CI: 21.1-78.9%) and 31.3% in the 112 gBRCAwt pts (95% CI: 22.8-40.7%). HR deficiency status has thus far been determined for 74 pts: 26 pts have HD deficient tumors: 18 TNBC, 5 Luminal B, 2 ER-/HER2+; and 1 ER+/HER2+. Determination of HR deficiency is ongoing and will be reported for the full cohort in terms of 12 week MRI response to T and pCR to T+AC.
HR deficientMolecular Subtypeyes (%)no (%)TBD (%)Luminal A0/112/11 (18.2)9/11 (81.8)Luminal B5/37 (13.5)13/37 (35.1)19/37 (51.3)Luminal NOS0/21/2 (50)1/2 (50)ER+/Her2+1/17 (5.8)14/17 (82.4)2/17 (11.8)ER-/Her2+2/20 (10)11/20 (55)7/20 (35)Triple Negative18/43 (41.9)6/43 (18.6)17/43 (39.5)germline BRCA statusMRI partial response after T (%)MRI complete response after T (%)pCR after T&AC (%)BRCA11/4 (25)0/42/4 (50)BRCA25/8 (62.5)2/8 (25)4/8 (50)BRCAwt35/112 (31.3)18/112 (16.1)35/112 (31.3)
Conclusion: In the setting of neoadjuvant weekly T followed by AC, pCR rates were non-significantly higher in pts with BRCA1 mutations. While we observed no overall association between BRCA mutation status and response rates to taxanes; nearly all MRI responses to taxanes (partial and complete) were observed in the BRCA2 group. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and to determine whether BRCA status can be used to select therapy. HR deficiency is uncommon in luminal A and HER2+, frequent in TNBC, and the association of HRD with both MRI response to taxanes and pCR will be reported at the meeting.
Citation Format: Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, McLaughlin SA, Moreno Aspitia A, Moyer AM, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Vedell PT, Tang X, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Hart SN, Visscher DW, Wieben ED, Ingle JN, Hartman A-R, Timms K, Elkin E, Jones J, Wang L, Weinshilboum RW, Goetz MP. Role of germline BRCA status and tumor homologous recombination (HR) deficiency in response to neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel followed by anthracycline-based chemotherapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-29.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JC Boughey
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - KR Kalari
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SA McLaughlin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - A Moreno Aspitia
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - AM Moyer
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - DW Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - RJ Gray
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - PT Vedell
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - X Tang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - TJ Dockter
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - KN Jones
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SJ Felten
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - AL Conners
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - SN Hart
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - DW Visscher
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - ED Wieben
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - A-R Hartman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - K Timms
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - E Elkin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - J Jones
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - RW Weinshilboum
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AR; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Yu J, Qin B, Boughey JC, Moyer AM, Visscher DW, Sinnwell JP, Yin P, Thompson KJ, Docter TJ, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, Wieben ED, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Jones KN, McLaughlin SA, Copland JA III, Moreno Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Ingle JN, Lou Z, Weinshilboum R, Goetz MP, Wang L. Abstract P3-07-51: Regulation of DNA methyltransferases via TRAF6 determines breast cancer response to decitabine. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p3-07-51] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Tumorigenesis involves both genetic and epigenetic changes. Epigenetic alterations are reversible and are promising cancer therapeutic targets. Decitabine (5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine), a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, is FDA approved for hematological malignancies. However, the effect of decitabine in breast cancer is not completely understood. Previous reports indicated that one decitabine mechanism involves regulation of protein levels for DNMT1, the major DNA methyltransferase that methylates hemimethylated CpG di-nucleotides in DNA. However, the E3 ligase involved in this process has not been identified. Whether decitabine also regulates DNMT3A and 3B in a similar fashion remains unclear. Therefore, our goals were to 1) understand mechanisms underlying decitabine action, 2) test the antitumor activity of decitabine in breast cancer models and 3) identify biomarkers associated with response to decitabine.
Methods and Results: Western blots of breast cancer cell lines showed that DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B protein levels decreased following decitabine treatment without a reduction in mRNA levels. Bioinformatic analysis of DNA methyltransferase sequences revealed a potential TRAF6 binding motif, and the interaction with TRAF6 (TNF receptor-associated factor 6) was confirmed by IP. TRAF6 functions as an E3 ligase. To determine whether TRAF6 might be the E3 ligase responsible for the degradation of DNMTs after decitabine treatment, we knocked down TRAF6 by RNA interference or knocked out the TRAF6 gene by CRISPR/Cas9. Down regulation of TRAF6 attenuated DNMT ubiquitination and increased DNMT protein levels, suggesting that TRAF6 might mediate proteasome-dependent degradation of all three DNMTs. This was further confirmed by reconstituting the knockout cells with WT and a TRAF6-C70A mutant, followed by assessing DNMT protein levels. Global DNA methylation was also increased after TRAF6 depletion and was confirmed in TRAF6 knock out cells in which DNMT levels were unaffected by decitabine. Cell cytotoxicity and colony forming assays showed that TRAF6 knockout cells were resistant to decitabine, suggesting that a major decitabine mechanism of action is through the regulation of TRAF6 which, in turn, degrades DNMTs, leading to decreased global methylation. Finally, decitabine significantly induced TRAF6 at both mRNA and protein levels, a process that might create positive feedback leading to increased degradation of DNMT proteins upon decitabine treatment. Based on these results, we further hypothesized that levels of the three DNMTs might influence decitabine response. Using 18 breast cancer patient derived xenograft (PDX) models, we found a wide range of DNMT protein levels regardless of ER/HER2 status. DNMT levels in the PDX models were directly associated with sensitivity to decitabine treatment, confirming our hypothesis.
Conclusion: Our data showed that decitabine might be an effective agent for treating breast cancer and revealed a novel mechanism underlying decitabine treatment. Baseline DNMT protein levels may serve as a biomarker for predicting decitabine drug response.
Citation Format: Yu J, Qin B, Boughey JC, Moyer AM, Visscher DW, Sinnwell JP, Yin P, Thompson KJ, Docter TJ, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, Wieben ED, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Jones KN, McLaughlin SA, Copland JA III, Moreno Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Ingle JN, Lou Z, Weinshilboum R, Goetz MP, Wang L. Regulation of DNA methyltransferases via TRAF6 determines breast cancer response to decitabine. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-51.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Yu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - B Qin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JC Boughey
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AM Moyer
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Visscher
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JP Sinnwell
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - P Yin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KJ Thompson
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - TJ Docter
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KR Kalari
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - ED Wieben
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SJ Felten
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AL Conners
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KN Jones
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SA McLaughlin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - III Copland JA
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - A Moreno Aspitia
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RJ Gray
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Z Lou
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - R Weinshilboum
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Goetz MP, Suman VJ, Reid JM, Northfelt DW, Mahr MA, Dockter T, Kuffel M, Buhrow SA, Safgren SL, McGovern RM, Collins JM, Streicher H, Hawse JR, Haddad TC, Erlichman C, Ames MM, Ingle JN. Abstract PD2-03: Final results of a first-in-human phase I study of the tamoxifen (TAM) metabolite, Z-Endoxifen hydrochloride (Z-Endx) in women with aromatase inhibitor (AI) refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NCT01327781). Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-pd2-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: AI's are more effective than TAM in ER+ breast cancer. In AI refractory MBC, the response rate to TAM is 0% (Osborne 2011). Z-Endx is an active metabolite of TAM and among TAM treated women in the adjuvant and metastatic settings, reduced CYP2D6 metabolism and low Endx concentrations (Css <20 nM) have been associated with increased likelihood of disease recurrence. Preclinical studies have demonstrated greater Z-Endx exposure and anti-tumor activity with oral Z-Endx compared to equivalent doses of oral TAM (Reid 2014)
Methods: We conducted a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the toxicities, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Z-Endx in patients (pts) with ER+, AI refractory MBC. Unlimited prior endocrine regimens were allowed. An accelerated titration schedule was applied (2 pts/dose level) until moderate toxicity or DLT, followed by a 3+3 design and then to expansion cohorts (40, 80, and 100 mg/day). Z-Endx was administered orally once daily (28 day cycle). Eye exams were performed at baseline, and end of cycles 2 and 6. PK was performed during cycle 1 and prior to subsequent cycles. For pts in the expansion cohorts, tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline for DNA sequencing (Foundation Medicine). Plasma cholesterol levels were obtained at baseline and after 1 cycle.
Results: From March 2011 to Dec 2014, 41 pts (38 evaluable), median age 60, received Z-Endx once daily encompassing 7 dose levels (20-160 mg/daily). The median number of prior hormonal regimens was 2 and 3 for the dose escalation and expansion cohorts, respectively. Dose escalation was stopped at 160 mg/day given MTD not reached and attainment of mean Endx Css of 3.6 uM. Cycle 1 DLT (PE) was observed in one patient (60 mg). No eye toxicity was observed. PK demonstrated mean Endx Css of > 1 uM at all dose levels ≥ 40 mg/day. Antitumor activity was observed at multiple dose levels including 3 confirmed partial responses and an additional 7 with stable disease for ≥6 cycles. Of these 10 pts, 9 had prior progression on both AI and fulvestrant and 3 additionally on TAM. After 1 cycle, total and LDL cholesterol decreased > 20 points in 54% and 40% of pts, respectively. Tumor sequencing in the expansion cohorts (n=14) did not identify ESR1 mutations; however, ESR1 amplification was identified in 1 pt with prolonged stable disease (>200 days). Of 6 pts with rapid progression (≤2 cycles), 4/6 had either CCND1 amplification (n=1) or at least one of the following activating mutations: ERBB2 L755S (n=1), AKT1 E17K (n=1), MTOR E1799K (n=1).
Conclusions: The direct administration of Z-END provides substantial drug exposure, acceptable toxicity, and "proof of principle" antitumor activity in endocrine resistant MBC. While the MTD was not determined, the goal of achieving Endx Css concentrations of > 1 uM was achieved. Tumor sequencing identified pts with predicted and confirmed endocrine resistance. A randomized phase II comparing endoxifen (80 mg/day) with TAM in AI refractory MBC was recently activated (NCT02311933). Supported in part by CA 133049, CA186686, CA15083, CA116201, and CA15083.
Citation Format: Goetz MP, Suman VJ, Reid JM, Northfelt DW, Mahr MA, Dockter T, Kuffel M, Buhrow SA, Safgren SL, McGovern RM, Collins JM, Streicher H, Hawse JR, Haddad TC, Erlichman C, Ames MM, Ingle JN. Final results of a first-in-human phase I study of the tamoxifen (TAM) metabolite, Z-Endoxifen hydrochloride (Z-Endx) in women with aromatase inhibitor (AI) refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NCT01327781). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JM Reid
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - MA Mahr
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - T Dockter
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - M Kuffel
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SA Buhrow
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SL Safgren
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RM McGovern
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JM Collins
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - H Streicher
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JR Hawse
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - TC Haddad
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - C Erlichman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - MM Ames
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Haddad TC, D'Assoro AB, Suman VJ, Opyrchal M, Goetz MP, Ingle JN. Abstract P6-13-04: A phase I trial to evaluate the safety of the addition of alisertib to fulvestrant in hormone receptor positive (HR+), advanced breast cancer. Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p6-13-04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: During tumor progression, activation of Aurora A kinase (AURKA) is associated with epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) reprogramming and expansion of a subpopulation of tumor initiating cells harboring a CD44+/CD24low/- phenotype [D'Assoro, Oncogene 2014]. These cells are characterized by their capacity to self-renew, resist drug therapies, and promote distant metastases. In ER+ breast cancer (BC) models, activation of AURKA is associated with down-regulation of ERα expression and resistance to endocrine therapy. Alisertib, a selective inhibitor of AURKA, can reverse EMT and restore tumor ERα expression and sensitivity to endocrine therapy [Opyrchal, PLoS One 2014]. As a single agent in HR+ advanced BC, alisertib was associated with a 6-month clinical benefit rate of 54% and median PFS of 7.9 months [Melichar, Lancet Oncol 2015]. The objectives of this phase I trial were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the toxicities and clinical activity of alisertib with fulvestrant in patients (pts) with HR+ advanced BC.
Methods: In this standard 3+3 dose-escalation phase I study, pts were assigned to two different oral doses of alisertib (40-50 mg BID on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 q 28-day cycle) in combination with standard dose fulvestrant (500 mg IM on day 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then day 1 q 28-day cycle thereafter). Eligibility included HR+ advanced BC, postmenopausal status, measurable disease or nonmeasurable bone disease by RECIST v1.1, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, unlimited prior endocrine therapies, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting.
Results: Ten pts enrolled September 2014 - April 2015, and 9 were evaluable for the primary endpoint (one excluded due to ineligibility). The median pt age was 59 (range 48, 73). Prior endocrine therapies included AI (9, 100%), fulvestrant (6, 67%), and everolimus/exemestane (5, 56%). Eight pts (89%) had prior chemotherapy.
A median of 4 cycles of therapy have been administered (range 1+, 9+). There were no severe (grade 3+) toxicities reported during cycle 1 at either dose level, thus the MTD was not reached. The cycle 1 grade 1/2 adverse events regardless of attribution were fatigue (6, 67%), neutropenia (5, 56%), anemia (5, 56%), leukopenia (4, 44%), diarrhea (3, 33%), nausea (3, 33%), and mucositis (1, 11%). As of June 3, 2015, 2 pts have discontinued treatment due to disease progression, and 7 remain on treatment with stable disease (Table). One pt with bone only disease had a near CR on PET scan.
Dose LevelAlisertib Dose (BID)Treatment Cycles≥ Grade 3 Toxicity, All CyclesProgression-Free Survival (days)1 (n=3)40 mg4, 7+, 9+ 117, 170+, 223+2 (n=6)50 mg1+, 2, 3+, 3+, 4+, 5+grade 4 neutropenia (1 pt)28+, 56, 56+, 57+, 112+, 116++ indicates patients still receiving treatment
Conclusion: Alisertib in combination with fulvestrant was well-tolerated. The recommended phase II dose is 50 mg twice daily on days 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 q 28-day cycle with standard dose fulvestrant. Promising antitumor activity was observed. Correlative tissue evaluation of AURKA expression and other EMT biomarkers is underway.
Funding: This work was funded by Takeda Oncology and supported by NIH Grant K12 CA90628 [TCH].
Citation Format: Haddad TC, D'Assoro AB, Suman VJ, Opyrchal M, Goetz MP, Ingle JN. A phase I trial to evaluate the safety of the addition of alisertib to fulvestrant in hormone receptor positive (HR+), advanced breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-13-04.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- TC Haddad
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | - AB D'Assoro
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | - M Opyrchal
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Iankov ID, Kurokawa CB, D'Assoro AB, Ingle JN, Domingo-Musibay E, Allen C, Crosby CM, Nair AA, Liu MC, Aderca I, Federspiel MJ, Galanis E. Inhibition of the Aurora A kinase augments the anti-tumor efficacy of oncolytic measles virotherapy. Cancer Gene Ther 2015; 22:438-44. [PMID: 26272026 PMCID: PMC4589445 DOI: 10.1038/cgt.2015.36] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2015] [Revised: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 06/19/2015] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Oncolytic measles virus (MV) strains have demonstrated broad spectrum preclinical anti-tumor, including breast cancer. Aurora A kinase controls mitotic spindle formation and plays a critical role in malignant transformation. We hypothesized that, by causing mitotic arrest, the Aurora A kinase inhibitor MLN8237 (alisertib) can increase MV oncolytic effect and efficacy. Alisertib enhanced MV oncolysis in vitro and significantly improved outcome in vivo against breast cancer xenografts. In a disseminated MDA-231-lu-P4 lung metastatic model, the MV/alisertib combination treatment markedly increased median survival to 82.5 days with 20% of the animals being long term survivors vs. 48 days median survival for the control animals. Similarly, in a pleural effusion model of advanced breast cancer, the MV/alisertib combination significantly improved outcome with a 74.5 day median survival versus the single agent groups (57 and 40 days respectively). Increased viral gene expression and IL-24 upregulation were demonstrated, representing possible mechanisms for the observed increase in antitumor effect. Inhibiting Aurora A kinase with alisertib represents a novel approach to enhance measles virus-mediated oncolysis and antitumor effect. Both oncolytic MV strains and alisertib are currently tested in clinical trials, this study therefore provides the basis for translational applications of this combinatorial strategy in the treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I D Iankov
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - C B Kurokawa
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - A B D'Assoro
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - J N Ingle
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - C Allen
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - C M Crosby
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - A A Nair
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - M C Liu
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - I Aderca
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - M J Federspiel
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - E Galanis
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.,Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Fackler MJ, Bujanda ZL, Umbricht C, Teo WW, Zhang Z, Visvanathan K, Jeter S, Argani P, Wang C, Ingle JN, Boughey J, McGuire K, King TA, Carey LA, Cope LA, Wolff AC, Sukumar S. Abstract P2-06-01: cMethDNA is a quantitative circulating methylated DNA assay for detection of metastatic breast cancer and for monitoring response to therapy. Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p2-06-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background- The ability to consistently detect cell-free tumor-specific DNA in peripheral blood of patients with metastatic breast cancer provides the opportunity to detect changes in tumor burden and to monitor response to treatment. Studies of cell-free DNA in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients suggest that methylated DNA markers in serum or plasma could be used for detection of advanced disease, monitoring of therapeutic response, and for early detection of disease recurrence.
Methods- A genome-wide serum DNA methylome array (Illumina HumanMethylation27 BeadChip) analysis was conducted on cell-free circulating DNA in serum from women with stage IV recurrent breast cancer, and 232 key CpG loci were identified. Methylation for this panel of 10 gene loci was evaluated using our newly developed cMethDNA assay to detect miniscule amounts of methylated DNA in Training and Test sets of sera from a total of 112 women (n = 55 normal, n = 57 metastatic breast cancer). The clinical sensitivity and specificity of the assay, along with technical reproducibility, was determined. To evaluate the concordance of DNA methylation patterns, the 10 gene panel was tested on 22 DNA sets of primary tumor, metastases and serum from the same patient. Finally, the ability of cMethDNA to monitor response to therapy was evaluated in 28 patients with metastatic disease.
Results- A normal laboratory threshold of 7 cumulative methylation units was set and assay parameters were locked, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses of DNA from 300 ul of patient sera in the Training set (normal, n = 28; cancer, n = 24; 92% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and AUC = 0.950). Evaluation of the Test set of patient sera (normal, n = 27; cancer n = 33) resulted in detection of metastatic breast cancer with 91% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and AUC = 0.994 (0.984-1.005, p<0.0001). Reproducibility of the cMethDNA assay increased with copy number; with the highest variation at 50 copies (CV = 29.1%) and the lowest at 3,200 copies (CV = 2.5%) of methylated DNA. The test was shown to be operator independent (ICC = 0.99). Evaluation of concordance between primary and disseminated tumor methylation showed that the methylation pattern from any given individual is highly conserved between serum, primary tissue and their metastases, and poorly conserved between different individuals. cMethDNA analysis of 28 patients before and after initiation of therapy showed a decrease in cumulative methylation in women with stable/responsive disease and a correlation with disease progression free survival (p<0.0001).
Conclusion- Together, our data suggest that the cMethDNA test 1) can detect tumor DNA shed into blood, 2) reflect the methylation alterations typical of the primary tumor and its metastatic lesions, and 3) reflect response to treatment after chemotherapy. Next, we will test the clinical utility of cMethDNA in independent clinical trial sample sets where it's complementary and independent roles will be examined against CA15.3 and CTC assays.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-06-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MJ Fackler
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - ZL Bujanda
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - C Umbricht
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - WW Teo
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Z Zhang
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - K Visvanathan
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Jeter
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - P Argani
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - C Wang
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - JN Ingle
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - J Boughey
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - K McGuire
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - TA King
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Carey
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - LA Cope
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - AC Wolff
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - S Sukumar
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Opyrchal M, Iankov I, Ingle JN, Galanis E, D'Assoro AB. Abstract P2-09-07: Inhibition of aurora-A by MLN8237 decreases SMAD5 expression and increases effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p2-09-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer affects thousands of women each year. Epithelial to Mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been associated with increased metastatic potential of cancer cells as well as resistance to chemotherapy. Predicatively, presence of EMT leads to worse prognosis in patients with breast cancer. We have recently showed that Aurora-A plays a key role in development of EMT and increased ability of breast cancer cells for self renewal. Therefore we hypothesized that inhibition of Aurora-A in breast cancer cells will lead to increased sensitivity to chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Increased Aurora-A expression, as assessed by IHC staining, in patients with locally advanced disease was associated with worse prognosis. We show that in ER+ cell line, MCF7, activating MAPK pathway through overexpression of Raf1 leads to increase in Aurora-A activity. These cells have decreased sensitivity to treatment with paclitaxel when compared to untransfected cells in MTT assays. This effect is even more exacerbated with over-expression of Aurora-A. The sensitivity to paclitaxel was restored with inhibition of Aurora-A by specific inhibitor, Alisertib. This was further explored in triple negative (MDA-MB-231) or Her-2/neu expressing (SUM149) cell lines. These cells express higher levels of Aurora-A. Inhibition of Aurora-A activity in combination with paclitaxel was superior when compared to either therapy alone. Similar effect was seen with use of anthracyclines. Inhibition of Aurora-A resulted in decreased SMAD5 expression as well as decreased Akt phosphorylation. Current studies are looking at a role of Aurora-A in activating SMAD5 and its role in resistance to chemotherapy. In vivo experiments evaluating combination therapies in breast cancer animal model are ongoing.
CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of Aurora-A by a specific inhibitor, MLN8237, resulted in decreased SMAD5 expression and increased effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents in breast cancer cells. These results contribute to better understanding of signaling pathways involved in resistance of breast cancer cells to chemotherapy. This knowledge could be very useful in developing more effective treatments for breast cancer patients in neo-adjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-09-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Opyrchal
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | - I Iankov
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | - E Galanis
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | - AB D'Assoro
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Goetz MP, Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Eckel-Passow J, Suman VJ, Sicotte H, Hart SN, Moyer AM, Visscher DW, Yu J, Gao B, Sinnwell JP, Mahoney DW, Barman P, Vedell P, Tang X, Thompson K, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Conners AL, McLaughlin SA, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Wieben ED, Farrugia G, Schultz C, Ingle JN, Wang L, Weinshilboum RW. Abstract P1-08-10: Integration of next generation sequencing (NGS) and patient derived xenografts (PDX) to identify novel markers of paclitaxel (T) response in the breast cancer genome guided therapy study (BEAUTY). Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p1-08-10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background:
Based upon the association between pathologic response and disease free survival, the neoadjuvant setting is increasingly being used for drug development. NGS has identified unique and recurrent genetic alterations in breast cancer (BC) that are potentially targetable; however, the clinical implications are mostly unknown. We developed a prospective neoadjuvant study (BEAUTY) in high risk BC patients (pts) using weekly T followed by anthracycline-based chemo wherein percutaneous tumor biopsies (PTB) are obtained before/during/after chemo for NGS and PDX. Our goal is to identify novel biomarkers/pathways and develop PDX to test new therapeutic approaches.
Methods: Pts underwent PTB at baseline and after 12 wks of T. Response to T was defined based upon 12 week Ki-67: responder (<15%) vs non-responder (≥15%). Pts with histologic response and absence of invasive BC at 12 wks were classified as responders. NGS was performed using PTB/blood DNA (exome) and PTB (RNA seq). MRI response was classified using RECIST criteria. NGS data were used to identify somatic copy number variants (cnvs) and expressed single nucleotide variants (eSNVs). Non-SCID mice (estrogen supplemented) were implanted ≤ 30 minutes with PTB samples.
Results: Of the first 78 pts, 44 have completed T. Here we focus on 18 pts with either triple negative or luminal B BC. Clinical characteristics according to Ki-67 response are shown in Table 1. Comparison of genomic alterations in BEAUTY pts with TCGA identified a greater overlap with copy number gains (73%) compared to deletions (40%), along with similar observations of mutations in TP53, PTEN, RYR2, and AKT1 genes. Association analysis of CNVs and eSNVs between responders/non-responders identified 33 genes (predominantly located in chromosomes 1, 8, 13) and 580 eSNVs (corresponding to 497 genes) with a p < 0.05. Differential gene expression (DGE) analysis of responders/non-responders identified 198 genes with a p-value < 0.05. Integrated analysis of 539 genes (CNVs, eSNVs and DGE) identified pathways such as TGF-beta, Jak-Stat, WNT and NOTCH signalling. PDX take rate was 44% [triple negative (6/10); Luminal B (2/8)]. PDX growth rate was significantly associated with clinical baseline Ki-67 (p = 0.00014).
Conclusion: This is the first prospective study to demonstrate the feasibility of using PTB to obtain both NGS data and PDX in the neoadjuvant setting. PDX take rate is associated with BC subtype and baseline Ki-67. Studies are ongoing to 1) validate genes/pathways associated with treatment response in subsequent BEAUTY pts; 2) genomically characterize and assess PDX in vivo response to T and 3) Use NGS data to prioritize new drugs/drug combinations in PDX.
Funded by Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine and MC Cancer Center.
Clinical CharacteristicsOverallResponders: 12 week Ki-67 < 15% (n = 9)Non-Responders: 12 week Ki-67 ≥ 15% (n = 9)Median Age495345T stage T2/T314 (78%)7 (78%)7 (78%)Node Positive8 (44%)4 (44%)4 (44%)Triple negative10 (56%)6 (67%)4 (44%)Luminal B8 (44%)3 (33%)5 (56%)Ki-67 after 12 Weeks of T Median 5% (0-11%)Median 35% (17-60%)Complete/Partial MRI Response after T 6 (67%)2 (22%)
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-08-10.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JC Boughey
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KR Kalari
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - J Eckel-Passow
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - H Sicotte
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SN Hart
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AM Moyer
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Visscher
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - J Yu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - B Gao
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JP Sinnwell
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Mahoney
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - P Barman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - P Vedell
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - X Tang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - K Thompson
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - TJ Dockter
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KN Jones
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AL Conners
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SA McLaughlin
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - A Moreno-Aspitia
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - DW Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RJ Gray
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - ED Wieben
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - G Farrugia
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - C Schultz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - L Wang
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - RW Weinshilboum
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Hawse JR, Subramaniam M, Reese JM, Wu X, Negron V, Gingery A, Pitel KS, Shah SS, Cunliffe HE, McCullough AE, Pockaj BA, Couch FJ, Reynolds C, Lingle WL, Suman VJ, Spelsberg TC, Goetz MP, Ingle JN. Abstract P6-04-03: ERb and breast cancer: A potential predictive and prognostic biomarker and novel therapeutic drug target. Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p6-04-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), unlike ERα, classically functions as a tumor suppressor in vitro. However, ERβ's biological functions in vivo and predictive/prognostic value in breast cancer are controversial.
Methods: Expression of ERβ protein was determined using a well characterized and validated ERβ specific monoclonal antibody that only recognizes the full-length form of this receptor (PPG5/10) in the following 3 cohorts: 1) a cohort with all breast cancer subtypes (n = 182), 2) a prospective NCCTG adjuvant tamoxifen trial for postmenopausal women with ERα positive breast cancer with long-term follow-up (n = 198) and 3) a cohort of 80 triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs). To elucidate the biological functions of ERβ in breast cancer, novel ERβ expressing MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines were developed and characterized using multiple techniques and were examined for responsiveness to various ERβ targeted therapies.
Results: About one-third of all breast tumors, regardless of sub-type, were shown to express nuclear ERβ and this expression was independent of ERα or HER2. In the NCCTG 89-30-52 cohort, breast cancer recurrence rates were significantly associated with ERβ protein expression with 10 year recurrence rates of 25%, 15% and 4% for zero, low or high levels of ERβ expression respectively. Interestingly, in TNBCs, nuclear ERβ was expressed at intermediate or high levels in 24% of tumors. In the triple negative MDA-MB-231 cell line, expression of ERβ led to inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in response to estrogen and multiple ERβ specific agonists. Conversely, these same treatments induced proliferation of ERβ-expressing MCF7 cells which endogenously express ERα. However, ERβ expression sensitized MCF7 cells to the anti-proliferative effects of anti-estrogens. Microarray analysis and RT-PCR profiling of MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells revealed that estrogen and ERβ agonists highly induced the expression of multiple cystatins, a family of small secreted cysteine protease inhibitors which function as tumor suppressors, and potently inhibited canonical TGFβ signaling. Conditioned media isolated from estrogen or ERβ agonist treated MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells suppressed the proliferation rates and inhibited TGFβ signaling in other TNBC cell lines, effects that were completely reversed following the depletion of cystatins from the conditioned media.
Conclusions: These data demonstrate that ERβ is expressed in a substantial proportion of breast cancers and may have value as a predictive and/or prognostic biomarker. Therapeutic targeting of ERβ may have clinical benefit in multiple breast cancer sub-types; however, the specific drug of choice may vary based on ERα status. Specifically, we have demonstrated that ERβ expression in ERα+ MCF7 cells sensitizes them to the effectiveness of anti-estrogens, an observation that was confirmed in women enrolled in a prospective adjuvant tamoxifen trial. In TNBCs, where targeted therapies are lacking, our data suggest that targeting ERβ with either estrogen or ERβ specific agonists will elicit anti-tumor effects through the induction of cystatins and inhibition of TGFβ signaling resulting in tumor regression and improved patient outcomes.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P6-04-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JR Hawse
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - M Subramaniam
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JM Reese
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - X Wu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - V Negron
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - A Gingery
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - KS Pitel
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - SS Shah
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - HE Cunliffe
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - AE McCullough
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - BA Pockaj
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - FJ Couch
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - C Reynolds
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - WL Lingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - VJ Suman
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - TC Spelsberg
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Hawse JR, Gingery A, Subramaniam M, Pitel KS, Lindenmaier LB, Iwaniec UT, Turner RT, Spelsberg TC, Ingle JN, Goetz MP. Abstract P5-05-01: Endoxifen, a novel breast cancer therapy, elicits unique beneficial effects on bone relative to that of other selective estrogen receptor modulators. Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p5-05-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Commonly used endocrine therapies for breast cancer, such as aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women and tamoxifen in premenopausal women, have deleterious effects on bone mineral density. Therefore, the identification of novel cancer therapies which either maintain or improve bone mass are of clinical need. We and others have previously demonstrated that endoxifen is the most active tamoxifen metabolite responsible for eliciting the anti-cancer effects of this drug and that endoxifen concentrations are an important factor with regard to tamoxifen efficacy. These studies have led to the development of endoxifen as a novel anti-breast cancer drug for which phase I clinical trials are now underway. At present, there are no data regarding endoxifen's effects on bone.
Methods: The effects of endoxifen on osteoblast gene expression profiles were compared to that of estrogen, tamoxifen, raloxifene and lasofoxifene by microarray and RT-PCR analyses in both estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) and ERβ expressing cell lines. The in vivo effects of an anti-cancer dose of endoxifen (50mg/kg/day) on the skeleton were first analyzed in 3-month-old ovariectomized C57BL/6 mice using Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography, micro-Computed Tomography and histomorphometry. In a second set of studies, a pre-clinical rat model was used to determine the effects of endoxifen (10mg/kg/day) on the skeleton in both a pre- and post-menopausal setting.
Results: Endoxifen treatment of ERα and ERβ expressing mouse osteoblast cells led to dramatically different gene expression profiles when compared to that of estrogen and other anti-estrogens. In ovariectomized mice, daily administration of endoxifen led to significant increases in bone mineral density and content throughout the skeleton relative to vehicle control treated animals. The numbers and activity of both osteoblasts and osteoclasts were also found to be significantly higher in endoxifen treated mice. In the pre-clinical model system, endoxifen treatment of 4 month-old ovariectomized Sprague-Dawley rats significantly protected against bone loss following estrogen depletion primarily due to suppression of osteoclast mediated bone resorption. Importantly, in sham operated rats (thus retaining ovarian function), endoxifen treatment enhanced bone volume and trabecular thickness and did not suppress osteoclast activity.
Conclusions: These data are the first to examine the effects of the novel breast cancer therapy, endoxifen, on bone and reveal that the molecular mechanisms of action of this compound are substantially different than that of other SERMs. Endoxifen was shown to protect against bone loss following estrogen depletion in both mice and rats and interestingly, enhanced bone mass in ovary intact rats, an observation that is in stark contrast to the known effects of tamoxifen which induces bone loss in the “pre-menopausal” setting. These studies suggest that endoxifen may have superior bone-beneficial effects compared to tamoxifen, and if efficacy is confirmed in later phase trials, endoxifen may represent a better drug of choice for a sub-set of breast cancer patients.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P5-05-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JR Hawse
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - A Gingery
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - M Subramaniam
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - KS Pitel
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - LB Lindenmaier
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - UT Iwaniec
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - RT Turner
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - TC Spelsberg
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - JN Ingle
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| | - MP Goetz
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Perez EA, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Cameron DA, Pritchard KI, Whelan T, Shepherd LE, Tu D. Impact of premenopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis in women entered on the placebo-controlled NCIC CTG MA17 trial of extended adjuvant letrozole. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:355-361. [PMID: 23028039 PMCID: PMC3551482 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2012] [Revised: 07/10/2012] [Accepted: 07/11/2012] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND MA17 showed improved outcomes in postmenopausal women given extended letrozole (LET) after completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Exploratory subgroup analyses of disease-free survival (DFS), distant DFS (DDFS), overall survival (OS), toxic effects and quality of life (QOL) in MA17 were performed based on menopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis. RESULTS At diagnosis, 877 women were premenopausal and 4289 were postmenopausal. Extended LET was significantly better than placebo (PLAC) in DFS for premenopausal [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.55; P = 0.0003] and postmenopausal women (HR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.89; P = 0.006), with greater DFS benefit in those premenopausal (interaction P = 0.03). In adjusted post-unblinding analysis, those who switched from PLAC to LET improved DDFS in premenopausal (HR = 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.79; P = 0.02) and postmenopausal women (HR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.94; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Extended LET after 5 years of tamoxifen was effective in pre- and postmenopausal women at diagnosis, and significantly better in those premenopausal. Women premenopausal at diagnosis should be considered for extended adjuvant therapy with LET if menopausal after completing tamoxifen.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P E Goss
- Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
| | - J N Ingle
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
| | - S Martino
- Breast Cancer Division, Los Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica
| | - N J Robert
- Virgina Cancer Specialists, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Virgina
| | - H B Muss
- Department of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
| | | | - N E Davidson
- Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh
| | - E A Perez
- Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Jacksonville, USA
| | | | - D A Cameron
- Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital and, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - K I Pritchard
- Sunnybrook Odette Regional Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto
| | - T Whelan
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton
| | - L E Shepherd
- National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Canada
| | - D Tu
- National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Freedman RA, Gelman RS, Wefel JS, Krop IE, Melisko ME, Ly A, Agar NYR, Connolly RM, Blackwell KL, Nabell LM, Ingle JN, Van Poznak CH, Puhalla SL, Niravath PA, Ryabin N, Wolff AC, Winer EP, Lin N. Abstract OT1-1-11: TBCRC 022: Phase II Trial of Neratinib for Patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-Positive Breast cancer and Brain Metastases. Cancer Res 2012. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs12-ot1-1-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: 1/3 of women with metastatic HER2+ breast cancer will develop central nervous system (CNS) metastases yet evidence-based treatments for women with progressive CNS disease are limited. Neratinib is an irreversible inhibitor of erbB1, HER2, and erbB4 which has promising activity in HER2+ breast cancer. Preclinical evidence suggests it may cross the blood brain barrier.
Trial Design: This is a multicenter, phase II, open-label study of neratinib for patients with HER2+ breast cancer and brain metastases. Neratinib is administered at 240 mg orally daily during a 28 day cycle. Two cohorts will be enrolled: Cohort 1 will enroll 40 patients with progressive CNS disease; cohort 2 will enroll ≤5 patients who are candidates for surgical excision of intracranial disease. Surgical candidates receive neratinib 7–21 days preoperatively and resume postoperatively. All patients are re-staged every 2 cycles. Those who develop non-CNS progression have an option to extend therapy with trastuzumab+neratinib. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are collected at baseline and progression; neurocognitive testing, HADS and EORTC QLQ30/BN20 measures are administered at baseline, cycle 2, cycle 3, and progression (cohort 1). Intracranial tumor, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and plasma are collected at surgery (cohort 2).
Specific Aims: The primary endpoint is CNS objective response rate (ORR) by composite criteria. Additional endpoints include: non-CNS ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), site of 1st progression, and toxicity. Correlative and exploratory endpoints include association of CTC count and OS and longitudinal neurocognitive function and quality of life. In an exploratory analysis (cohort 2), we will quantify neratinib concentrations in CSF, intracranial tissue, and plasma and examine associations with response.
Eligibility: Patients must have confirmed HER2+ metastatic disease with ≥1 parenchymal brain lesion measuring ≥10 mm that is new or progressed after completing ≥1 line of standard CNS-directed treatment (cohort 1) or CNS disease that is amenable for surgery, including those without prior CNS treatments (cohort 2). Additional eligibility criteria (cohorts 1,2) include: adequate performance status and end organ/marrow function, and ejection fraction ≥50%. Any number of prior lines of therapy is allowed, including prior lapatinib.
Statistical Methods: Cohort 1 has a 2-stage design with up to 40 patients. CNS ORR is defined as ≥50% reduction in sum volume of CNS target lesions, without evidence of new lesions, progression of non-target CNS lesions, non-CNS disease progression, worsening neurological symptoms, or increase in corticosteroids. CNS lesion measurements are performed centrally by the Harvard Tumor Imaging Metrics Core. If 1/18 patients have a CNS response in the 1st stage, another 22 patients will enroll. With this design, if ≥5 of 40 patients achieve a CNS response, the drug will be deemed worthy of future study. This 2-stage design has 92% power to distinguish between a true CNS ORR of 20% and a null of 6% (one-sided type I error rate=9%).
Accrual: Accrual has begun. Target=45 (cohort 1=40, cohort 2=5)
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-1-11.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- RA Freedman
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - RS Gelman
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - JS Wefel
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - IE Krop
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - ME Melisko
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - A Ly
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - NYR Agar
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - RM Connolly
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - KL Blackwell
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - LM Nabell
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - JN Ingle
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - CH Van Poznak
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - SL Puhalla
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - PA Niravath
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - N Ryabin
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - AC Wolff
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - EP Winer
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| | - N Lin
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of California, San Francisco, CA; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Duke University, Durham, NC; University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Univerity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Baylor, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Perez EA, Ballman KV, Reinholz MM, Dueck AC, Cheng H, Jenkins RB, McCullough AE, Chen B, Davidson NE, Martino S, Kaufman PA, Kutteh LA, Sledge GW, Geiger XJ, Ingle JN, Tenner KS, Harris LN, Gralow JR, Rimm DL. PD05-03: Impact of Quantitative Measurement of HER2, HER3, HER4, EGFR, ER and PTEN Protein Expression on Benefit to Adjuvant Trastuzumab in Early-Stage HER2+ Breast Cancer Patients in NCCTG N9831. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-pd05-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Prediction of benefit from trastuzumab in patients (pts) with HER2+ breast cancer remains an important goal. We sought to investigate the predictive value of quantitative measurement of HER2, HER3, HER4, EGFR, ER and PTEN protein expression on the benefit of trastuzumab in the phase III HER2+ adjuvant N9831 study for pts randomized to chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy with sequential (Arm B) or concurrent trastuzumab (Arm C).
Methods: For each marker, we evaluated quantitative expression, relationship with demographic data, and association with disease-free survival (DFS) of pts. Freshly cut tissue microarray slides with up to three-fold redundancy per specimen from the N9831 cohort were treated identically using the AQUA (Camp, et al; Nat Med 2002, JCO 2008) method of quantitative immunofluorescence for each marker. HER2 was tested with CB11 (mouse monoclonal, Biocare, Inc.) and preliminary results were available for 698 of nearly 1400 pt specimens to be tested. The minimum value per pt was used in statistical analysis. Specimens were classified with high versus low expression based on a median value cutpoint for each marker. Median follow-up was 7.0 yrs.
Results: Quantitative HER2 was compared with centrally performed HER2 testing by IHC and FISH. Median quantitative HER2 via AQUA was 10,017 units for the HER2 IHC 3+ group (n=607) versus 1058, 831, and 970 for the HER2 IHC 2+ (n=68), 1+ (n=11), and 0 (n=11) groups, respectively. The Spearman correlation between quantitative HER2 and FISH HER2/CEP17 ratio was 0.32 (p<0.001). High quantitative HER2 was associated with lower percentage of hormone receptor positivity (48% vs 59%, chi-sq p=0.003) but not associated with age, race, nodal positivity, tumor histology, grade, or size. High HER2 did not impact DFS in any arm of the study (See Table). Data for additional HER2 testing, HER3, HER4, EGFR, ER and PTEN are in process and will be ready by September, 2011.
Conclusions: Similar to results based on standard HER2 testing by IHC and FISH in N9831, quantitative HER2 did not impact benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab. Results for additional markers will be presented. Our complete quantitative results for a second epitope on HER2, HER3, HER4, ER and EGFR will be the first report of these markers in a large patient cohort in the adjuvant setting.
Disease Free Survival
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr PD05-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- EA Perez
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - KV Ballman
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - MM Reinholz
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - AC Dueck
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - H Cheng
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - RB Jenkins
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - AE McCullough
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - B Chen
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - NE Davidson
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - S Martino
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - PA Kaufman
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - LA Kutteh
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - GW Sledge
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - XJ Geiger
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - JN Ingle
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - KS Tenner
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - LN Harris
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - JR Gralow
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| | - DL Rimm
- 1Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA; Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA; Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Oncology Associates of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, IA; Indiana University Medical Center Cancer Pavillion, Indianapolis, IN; Yale University, New Haven, CT; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Hawse JR, Cicek M, Subramaniam M, Pitel KS, Peters KD, Grygo SB, Wu X, Evans GL, Iwaniec UT, Turner RT, Ingle JN, Goetz MP, Spelsberg TC. P3-16-09: Endoxifen, a Newly Developed Breast Cancer Drug, Has Anabolic Actions on the Mouse Skeleton. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p3-16-09] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Commonly used endocrine therapies for breast cancer, such as aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women and tamoxifen in premenopausal women, have deleterious effects on bone mineral density. Therefore, the identification of novel cancer therapies which either maintain or improve bone mass are of clinical need. We have recently demonstrated that endoxifen is the most active tamoxifen metabolite with regard to inhibiting the growth of ERα+ breast cancer cells and these studies have led to the development of endoxifen as a novel anti-breast cancer drug for which first-in-human studies are now underway. At present, there are no data regarding endoxifen's effects on bone.
Methods: The effects of endoxifen on osteoblast (OB) and osteoclast (OC) maturation and gene expression were monitored by cell differentiation assays and real-time PCR. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography (pQCT) and micro-Computed Tomography (μCT) were used to determine changes in bone density, mass and architecture following 45 days of oral endoxifen administration (50mg/kg/day) to 3-month-old ovariectomized (OVX) C57BL/6 mice relative to vehicle control treated animals. Alterations in the numbers and activity of OBs and OCs were determined by histomorphometry and serum levels of P1NP and CTX-1 respectively.
Results: Endoxifen treatment of mouse derived bone marrow stromal cells and human OBs led to significant increases in the expression of critical bone marker genes such as Runx2, osterix, osteocalcin, osteoprotegerin and alkaline phosphatase in a dose dependent manner. Daily administration of endoxifen to OVX mice led to significant increases in total body bone mineral density (BMD) (6%) and content (BMC) (9%), which was accompanied by a 50% decrease in fat tissue mass as determined by DXA. pQCT analysis of the tibial metaphysis revealed dramatic increases in BMD (35%) and BMC (20%), as well as trabecular density (52%), cortical content (62%), cortical area (60%) and cortical thickness (78%). μCT analysis of the femoral metaphysis revealed increases in bone volume/total volume (200%), trabecular number (38%) and trabecular thickness (18%), as well as decreased trabecular spacing (29%). Interestingly, there was nearly a 50% increase in the numbers of OCs derived from endoxifen treated mice which was associated with elevated expression of OC marker genes such as NFATcl, RANK, c-fms and cathepsin-K compared to control treated animals. Approximately 4 times as many OBs and OCs were observed on the bone surfaces of endoxifen treated mice which correlated with nearly 2-fold increases in serum levels of the bone formation (P1NP) and resorption (CTX-1) markers.
Conclusions: These data are the first to demonstrate that endoxifen has anabolic effects on the mouse skeleton which are similar to that of estrogen. Additionally, these data reveal that endoxifen's mechanism of action in bone is different than that reported for tamoxifen and other selective estrogen receptor modulators in mice as it increases, rather than decreases, bone formation and remodeling. Therefore, the use of endoxifen for the treatment of endocrine responsive breast cancer may avoid the detrimental skeletal effects of many conventional endocrine therapies.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-16-09.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JR Hawse
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - M Cicek
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | | | - KS Pitel
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - KD Peters
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - SB Grygo
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - X Wu
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - GL Evans
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | | | - RT Turner
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - JN Ingle
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | - MP Goetz
- 1Mayo Clinic; Oregon State University
| | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Goss PE, Richardson H, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT, Fabian CJ, Garber JE, Sarto GE, Hiltz A, Tu D, Cheung AM. P4-11-13: Influence of Two Years of Exemestane on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women at Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer; a Companion Study to the NCIC CTG MAP.3 Trial. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p4-11-13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Exemestane significantly reduced invasive and preinvasive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer in the NCIC CTG MAP3 trial with no serious toxicities, including excess fractures or osteoporosis.
Purpose: To provide additional information on the effect of exemestane on bone loss in women at high risk for breast cancer, within a subset of women participating on the NCIC CTG MAP.3B study. The primary hypothesis is that exemestane does not induce clinically significant bone loss in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer at 2 years. The primary objective of this companion study is to examine the effect of exemestane on lumbar spine and total hip BMD by DEXA at 2 years in women participating in the MAP3 trial.
Methods: The MAP.3B bone sub-study registered women from the main MAP. 3 trial from May 2008 to March 2010. Eligible women had to have an acceptable quality BMD scan by DEXA taken within 12 months prior to randomization to MAP.3. A BMD T-score >-2.0 SD (i.e. better than 2 standard deviations below the average peak BMD of a young adult woman) was established as the study population cutoff. A questionnaire including information on height, falls, fractures, lifestyle information including physical activity, tobacco and alcohol use was completed at baseline, 12 months, 24 months and at last visit. Fasting serum for bone biomarkers was collected at 12 months and total hip and L1-L4 (postero-anterior) spine BMD were measured 2 years after randomization on the same Lunar or Hologic scanner. The primary objective was to determine differences in hip and spine BMD at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include number of skeletal fractures and development of osteoporosis 2 years after randomization and changes in bone biomarkers at 1 year after randomization. For the analysis of the primary endpoints, the upper limit of a one sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean percentage changes between placebo and exemestane will be calculated for the BMD by DEXA at each site. We will conclude that exemestane does not induce significant bone loss in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer at 2 years when the upper limit is less than 3% for both sites. Similar confidence interval approach will be used to analyze the secondary endpoints.
Results: Between May 2008 and March 2010, 238 postmenopausal women were recruited. Median age was 61.8 years, and the majority of women were Caucasian (91%), with approximately 20% of the participants reporting a recent fall (within past 12 months) and another 13% reporting a recent fracture prior to randomization. We will report results from the primary as well as the secondary endpoints at the SABCS meeting.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-13.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- PE Goss
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - H Richardson
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - JN Ingle
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - RT Chlebowski
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - CJ Fabian
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - JE Garber
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - GE Sarto
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - A Hiltz
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - D Tu
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - AM Cheung
- 1Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Dong B, Chapman JAW, Yerushalmi R, Goss PE, Pollak MN, Burnell MJ, Bramwell VH, Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Whelan TJ, Ingle JN, Parulekar W, Shepherd LE, Gelmon KA. P5-14-01: Differences in Efficacy by Assessment Method: NCIC CTG Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials MA.5, MA.12, MA.14, MA.21, MA.27 Meta-Analysis. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p5-14-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Based on recent breast cancer literature, we hypothesized that there could be substantive differences in apparent efficacy estimates using a log-normal (LN) survival model rather than with standard Kaplan-Meier (K-M) or Cox model methods. While both Cox and LN survival analyses offer greater specification by individual patient characteristics, the LN model may more robustly estimate survival under model misspecification. Methods: We recently pooled data for 5 NCIC CTG primary breast cancer trials: MA.5, MA.12, MA.14, MA.21, and MA.27. The total patient count for patients who received at least 1 dose of trial therapy is 11,253. Compilation included definition of STEEP endpoints (C Hudis, JCO, 2008) and standardized factor categorizations. The primary endpoint is Breast Cancer Free Interval (BCFI) defined as the time from randomization until recurrence: first local invasive or DCIS; regional, or distant; contralateral invasive or DCIS; or death from breast cancer. We found substantive evidence of non-proportionality for 7 factors compiled for the meta-analyses. In this work, we fit multivariate Cox and LN models with these 7 factors, lymph node status and pathologic T status. We then compare BCFI efficacy estimates for patient and tumour characteristics at 1-, 3-, and 5-years obtained with K-M, Cox, and LN models. Results: There was evidence that the Cox assumption of proportional hazards was violated for 7 factors: age, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, anthracycline use, chemotherapy use, race, and ECOG performance status. Differences between models were intrinsically affected by timing and extent of non-proportionality; there was no consistent pattern. In particular, investigations to date indicate efficacy estimates with absolute differences between K-M, Cox and LN estimates which varied by time of assessment: at 1-year 0.0 to 6.7%, at 3-years 0.4 to 18.6%, and at 5-years 0.2 to 17.0%. BCFI estimates with the K-M were inconsistently closer to those with the LN or Cox model: for K-M to Cox at 1-year 0.4 to 5.2%, at 3-years 0.4 to 15%, at 5-years 0.4 to 14.3%; for K-M to LN at 1-year 0.0 to 6.7%, at 3-years 0.5 to 18.6%, at 5-years 0.2 to 17.0%; for Cox to LN at 1-year 0.8 to 1.8%, at 3-years 1.9 to 6.0%, at 5-years 0.6 to 5.7%. K-M and Cox models have step-wise adjustments at events for K-M and Cox, rather than smooth modeling with the LN. Discussion: Even with reasonably large population subgroups, there were substantive differences in apparent survival (0.0 to 18.6%) between K-M, Cox and LN model types. The magnitude of differences in survival estimates was large enough to be clinically relevant and warrant further consideration as we evaluate new therapies and prognostic/predictive factors. We will be statistically investigating framework robustness under differing levels of model misspecification.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Dong
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - J-AW Chapman
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - R Yerushalmi
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - PE Goss
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - MN Pollak
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - MJ Burnell
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - VH Bramwell
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - MN Levine
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - KI Pritchard
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - TJ Whelan
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - JN Ingle
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - W Parulekar
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - LE Shepherd
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - KA Gelmon
- 1NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Vancouver Cancer Centre-BCCA, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation, Saint John, NB, Canada; Alberta Cancer Board, Calgary, AB, Canada; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Hawse JR, Wu X, Cicek M, Subramaniam M, Negron V, Lingle WL, Goetz MP, Spelsberg TC, Ingle JN. P4-02-03: Biological Functions of Estrogen Receptor-beta and Its Variants in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-p4-02-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The role of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) in breast cancer has been studied extensively; yet, much less is known about full-length ERβ (ERβ1) and even less about its 4 variant forms (ERβ2-5). We have recently implicated a role for ERβ1 in sensitizing ERα expressing breast cancer cells to anti-estrogens. However, the ability of ERβ2-5 to modulate ERα and ERβ1 activity, and their association with cancer development, progression, and response to estradiol (E2) and anti-estrogens are not well understood. Here, we provide evidence that the presence of ERβ variants may be of diagnostic and clinical relevance for breast cancer patients and describe the development and characterization of a novel, highly specific monoclonal antibody (MC10) that is able to detect their expression in tumor biopsies.
Methods: Transient transfection and luciferase assays were used to determine the transcriptional activity of ERβ2-5 in response to E2 and anti-estrogens alone or in combination with ERα and ERβ1. A novel monoclonal antibody targeting all ERβ variants (MC10) was developed and characterized. The sub-cellular localization of ERβ2-5 was determined via confocal microscopy. Finally, the MC10 antibody was used to assess ERβ positivity in breast tumors and was compared to that of another monoclonal antibody which only detects ERβ1.
Results: Unlike ERβ1, ERβ2-5 do not activate an estrogen response element (ERE) in response to E2 and instead, slightly repress the activity of this reporter construct. Expression of ERβ2-5 does not significantly alter the transcriptional activity of ERβ1 following E2 treatment. However, ERβ2, 3 and 5, but not ERβ4, significantly enhance the E2-induced transcriptional activity of ERα. Interestingly, expression of ERβ3, 4 and 5, but not ERβ2, enhance the ability of anti-estrogens to block ERα mediated transcriptional activity. Confocal microscopy revealed that ERβ1 and 2 are almost exclusively localized to the cell nucleus. However, ERβ3-5 exhibit significant cytoplasmic and peri-nuclear localization. Immunohistochemistry of breast cancer biopsies using the MC10 antibody revealed multiple staining patterns including tumors which exhibit primarily nuclear staining and others primarily cytoplasmic, both in the presence and absence of ERα. These results are in contrast to the almost exclusive nuclear staining obtained on the same tumors with an ERβ1-specific antibody.
Conclusions: ERβ variants exhibit variable sub-cellular localization patterns and can influence the function of ERα, both in response to E2 and anti-estrogens. Therefore, the differential expression of ERβ variants and their cellular localization may influence breast cancer progression and/or therapeutic responses. The use of ERβ antibodies which do not detect all ERβ variants, or the use of a single ERβ antibody which does not discriminate between ERβ1 and its variants, is unlikely to reveal the complete biological significance of total ERβ expression in breast cancer and may in part explain the conflicting studies which have been reported for ERβ in the field.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-02-03.
Collapse
|
33
|
Maunsell E, Richardson H, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez JE, Chlebowski RT, Fabian CJ, Sarto GE, Garber JE, Pujol P, Hiltz A, Tu D, Goss PE. S6-1: Menopause-Specific and Health-Related Qualities of Life among Post-Menopausal Women Taking Exemestane for Prevention of Breast Cancer: Results from the NCIC CTG MAP.3 Placebo-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trial. Cancer Res 2011. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs11-s6-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, reduced the incidence of invasive breast cancers by 65% among 4560 post-menopausal randomized to exemestane or placebo for 5 years on MAP.3. Differences in quality of life (QOL) were judged to be minimal, but only summary information was reported.
Purpose: To provide more detailed information about effects of exemestane on menopause-specific and health-related qualities of life.
Method: Participation in quality of life assessment was an eligibility criterion. Menopause-specific and health-related qualities of life were assessed using the MENQOL (4 scales; physical, vasomotor, psychosocial, sexual) and SF-36 (8 scales; physical health, role function — physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social function, role function — emotional, mental health, and 2 summary scales) instruments, respectively at baseline, 6 months and then yearly after randomization. Compliance with QOL questionnaire completion at each follow-up visit ranged from 93–98%, and did not differ by group. Change scores for each MENQOL and SF-36 scale, calculated for each assessment time relative to baseline, were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. Summary scores were used to summarize the QOL scores observed at each time point for each SF-36 dimension and overall mental (MCS) and physical component summaries (PCS) and MENQOL domains. Clinically important worsening of MENQOL change scores was defined as an increase of ≥0.5/8 points. SF-36 change scores were considered worsened if scores decreased by ≥ 5 points from baseline.
Results: Both groups were balanced on scores for MENQOL and SF-36 at baseline. Median follow-up was 35 months and the proportion of women who stopped study medication early for toxicity reasons was 15% in the exemestane arm and 11% in the placebo arm. There was a statistically significant difference in change scores for vasomotor symptoms among women on exemestane during the first 4 years (p-values <0.01), compared to placebo. However, no between-group differences in vasomotor change met the criterion for clinical importance. Women on exemestane had statistically poorer sexual functioning (mean change = −0.02, SD=1.37) compared to placebo (mean change = −0.12, SD=1.32) during the first 6 months on study (p-value = 0.03) but the differences were not statistically significant thereafter or clinically important at any time. Among the 8 SF-36 scales, only bodily pain was statistically different between exemestane and placebo for the first 24 months on study medication (p-value <0.01), but no between-group difference in change scores exceeded 5 points. Overall SF-36 PCS and MCS assessing changes in overall physical and mental health-related QOL did not differ significantly by group at any assessment.
Conclusion: Our assessment that early differences in vasomotor symptoms and pain were probably not clinically important is supported by the observation of no between-group differences when overall physical and mental health-related QOL changes were compared. Exemestane does not appear to have a major negative impact on the quality of life among these women.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Maunsell
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - H Richardson
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - JN Ingle
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - JE Ales-Martinez
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - RT Chlebowski
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - CJ Fabian
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - GE Sarto
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - JE Garber
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - P Pujol
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - A Hiltz
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - D Tu
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| | - PE Goss
- 1Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hospital Ntra Sra Sonsoles, Avila, Spain; Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA; University of Kansas Medical Center, Westwood, KS; Center for Women's Health and Health Research, Madison, WI; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; CHU-Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Sgroi D, Carney E, Richardson E, Steffel L, Binns SN, Finkelstein DM, Shepherd LE, Kesty NC, Schnabel C, Erlander MG, Ingle JN, Porter P, Paik S, Muss HB, Pritchard KI, Tu D, Goss PE. Prediction of late recurrences by breast cancer index in the NCIC CTG MA.17 cohort. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.27_suppl.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
2 Background: The MA.17 trial demonstrated that extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole after 5-y of tamoxifen markedly reduced the risk of recurrence in women with ER+ early stage breast cancer. This trial provides an opportunity to assess the ability of biomarkers to predict late recurrences in ER+ breast cancer. The Breast Cancer Index (BCI), a continuous risk index based on the combination of HOXB13:IL17BR (H:I) and the molecular grade index (MGI), estimates the individual risk of recurrence in ER+ breast cancer patients. In this study, the prognostic utility of BCI to predict late recurrences was examined. Methods: FFPE tumor blocks were collected from patients who experienced a breast cancer recurrence up to unblinding of MA.17. Controls were matched 2:1 for age, tumor size, nodal status and prior chemotherapy, and were disease free for longer than cases. All cases were reviewed for standard histopathology and evaluated using the real-time RT-PCR BCI assay. Results: Patient characteristics for the case-control study were similar to that from the overall study. Characteristics for cases (N=83) and controls (N=166) were not significantly different except for treatment. A higher percentage of controls compared to cases tended to be categorized as low risk by BCI (58% vs 43%), while a lower percentage of controls than cases tended to be categorized as high risk by BCI (34% vs 24%). In univariate analysis, treatment, BCI, H:I and HOXB13, but not tumor grade or MGI, were significant predictors of late recurrence. After adjusting for standard variables (age, tumor grade and treatment), BCI (OR 2.37; P=0.03), H:I (OR 2.55; P=0.04) and HOXB13 (OR 1.35; P=0.02) remained significant predictors of recurrence. HOXB13 expression at diagnosis predicted patient benefit from extended endocrine therapy with letrozole. Conclusions: In this case-controlled study, the data demonstrate that BCI is a significant predictor of late recurrences in ER+ patients following 5-y of tamoxifen. The prognostic performance of BCI to predict late recurrences was largely dependent on HOXB13 expression. The integration of H:I and MGI within BCI provides prognostic utility for both early and late recurrences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D. Sgroi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - E. Carney
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - E. Richardson
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - L. Steffel
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - S. N. Binns
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - D. M. Finkelstein
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - L. E. Shepherd
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - N. C. Kesty
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - C. Schnabel
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - M. G. Erlander
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - J. N. Ingle
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - P. Porter
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - S. Paik
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - H. B. Muss
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - K. I. Pritchard
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - D. Tu
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| | - P. E. Goss
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; bioTheranostics, Inc., San Diego, CA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC; Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Kingston, ON,
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez J, Cheung A, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, McTiernan A, Robbins J, Johnson K, Martin L, Winquist E, Sarto G, Garber JE, Fabian CJ, Pujol P, Maunsell E, Farmer P, Gelmon KA, Tu D, Richardson H. Exemestane for primary prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: NCIC CTG MAP.3—A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.18_suppl.lba504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
LBA504 Background: Limited efficacy and serious toxicities have limited uptake of tamoxifen or raloxifene as preventatives of breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) prevent contralateral breast cancers more than tamoxifen in adjuvant trials and have fewer serious side effects. This is the first report of an AI used in primary prevention. Methods: NCIC CTG MAP.3 is a randomized trial designed to detect a 65% reduction in annual incidence of invasive breast cancer (IBC) on exemestane (E) versus placebo (P). Eligible postmenopausal women had ≥ one of the following risk factors: Gail score >1.66%, prior ADH, ALH, LCIS or DCIS with mastectomy, age over 60. Health-related and menopause-specific quality of life (QOL) were assessed by SF-36 and MENQOL questionnaires. Results: From 2004-2010, 4,560 women were randomized: age 62.5 yrs (37-90); Gail Score 2.3 % (0.6-21); BMI 28.0 kg/m2 (15.9-65.4). Risk factors included: age >60 yrs (49%); Gail score >1.66 (40%); and prior ADH, ALH, LCIS or DCIS with mastectomy (11%). At median follow-up of 35 months there were 11 IBCs on E and 32 on P (annual incidence 0.19% vs 0.55%; HR= 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.70, p = 0.002); ductal (10E/27P), lobular (1E/5P). Most tumors were ER positive (7E/27P); Her2/neu negative (10E/26P); TNM stage T1 (8E/28P), N0 (7E/22P), M0 (11E/30P). E was superior in all subgroups: by Gail score, age, BMI, prior LCIS and DCIS. The annual incidence rate of IBC or DCIS was 0.35% E and 0.77% P (HR=0.47;95% CI 0.27-0.79; p = 0.004) based on 64 IBCs or DCISs (20E/44P). Clinical bone fractures, osteoporosis, hypercholesterolemia or cardiovascular events were equal in both arms. No clinically meaningful differences in QOL were detected. Conclusions: Exemestane significantly reduced invasive and pre-invasive breast cancers in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer with no serious toxicities. Exemestane should be considered a new option for primary prevention of breast cancer. Supported by the Canadian Cancer Society; Pfizer Inc. PEG supported in part by Avon Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P. E. Goss
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - J. N. Ingle
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - J. Ales-Martinez
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - A. Cheung
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - R. T. Chlebowski
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - J. Wactawski-Wende
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - A. McTiernan
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - J. Robbins
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - K. Johnson
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - L. Martin
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - E. Winquist
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - G. Sarto
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - J. E. Garber
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - C. J. Fabian
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - P. Pujol
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - E. Maunsell
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - P. Farmer
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - K. A. Gelmon
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - D. Tu
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| | - H. Richardson
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Hosp Ruber Internacional, Madrid, Spain; Universtiy Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada; Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA; University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA; University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; London Health Sciences Centre, London, ON,
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Stearns V, Chapman JW, Ma CX, Ellis MJ, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, Budd GT, Rabaglio M, Sledge GW, Le Maitre A, Kundapur J, Shepherd LE, Goss PE. Relationship of treatment-emergent symptoms and recurrence-free survival in the NCIC CTG MA.27 adjuvant aromatase inhibitor trial. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
37
|
Haluska P, Dhar A, Hou X, Huang F, Nuyten DSA, Park J, Brodie AH, Ingle JN, Carboni JM, Gottardis MM, Wolff AC, Finckenstein FG. Phase II trial of the dual IGF-1R/IR inhibitor BMS-754807 with or without letrozole in aromatase inhibitor-resistant breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.tps111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
38
|
Block MS, Suman V, Kosel ML, Markovic S, Northfelt DW, Mukherjee P, McCullough AE, Pockaj BA, Nevala WK, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Gendler SJ. MUC1/HER2/neu peptide-based immunotherapeutic vaccines for breast adenocarcinomas. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.e13046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
39
|
Gucalp A, Tolaney SM, Isakoff SJ, Ingle JN, Liu MC, Carey LA, Blackwell KL, Rugo HS, Nabell L, Abbruzzi A, Gonzalez J, Giri DD, Patil S, Feigin K, D'Andrea G, Theodoulou M, Drullinsky P, Sklarin NT, Hudis C, Traina TA. TBCRC 011: Targeting the androgen receptor (AR) for the treatment of AR+/ER-/PR- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.tps122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
40
|
Hershman DL, Cheung AM, Chapman JW, Ingle JN, Ahmed F, Hu H, Scher J, Leeson S, Elliott C, Le Maitre A, Shepherd LE, Goss PE. Effects of adjuvant exemestane versus anastrozole on bone mineral density: Two-year results of the NCIC CTG MA.27 bone companion study. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
41
|
Yerushalmi R, Dong B, Chapman JW, Goss PE, Pollak MN, Burnell MJ, Bramwell VH, Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Whelan TJ, Ingle JN, Parulekar W, Shepherd LE, Gelmon KA. Impact of a change of body mass index (BMI) on outcome following adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, or trastuzumab for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.513] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
42
|
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez J, Cheung A, Chlebowski RT, Wactawski-Wende J, McTiernan A, Robbins J, Johnson K, Martin L, Winquist E, Sarto G, Garber JE, Fabian CJ, Pujol P, Maunsell E, Farmer P, Gelmon KA, Tu D, Richardson H. Exemestane for primary prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: NCIC CTG MAP.3—A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.lba504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
43
|
Goss PE, Barrios CH, Chan A, Chia SKL, Delaloge S, Ejlertsen B, Ingle JN, Moy B, Iwata H, Holmes FA, Mansi J, Von Minckwitz G, Han L, Thiele A, Agrapart V, Freyman A, Truscello J, Berkenblit A, Finkelstein D. A phase III trial of adjuvant neratinib (NER) after trastuzumab (TRAS) in women with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer (BC). J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.tps137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
44
|
Ingle JN, Fridley BL, Buzdar A, Robson ME, Kubo M, Liu M, Ibrahim-Zada I, Batzler A, Jenkins GD, Goetz MP, Northfelt DW, Perez EA, Williard CV, Wang L, Schaid DJ, Nakamura Y, Weinshilboum RM. Genes regulating estradiol and estrone-conjugate levels in postmenopausal women with resected early-stage breast cancer detected by a genome-wide association study (GWAS). J Clin Oncol 2011. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.1001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
45
|
Cigler T, Richardson H, Yaffe MJ, Fabian CJ, Johnston D, Ingle JN, Nassif E, Brunner RL, Wood ME, Pater JL, Hu H, Qi S, Tu D, Goss PE. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCIC CTG MAP.2) examining the effects of exemestane on mammographic breast density, bone density, markers of bone metabolism and serum lipid levels in postmenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126:453-61. [PMID: 21221773 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1322-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2010] [Accepted: 12/19/2010] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
We hypothesized that exemestane (EXE) would reduce mammographic breast density and have unique effects on biomarkers of bone and lipid metabolism. Healthy postmenopausal women were randomized to EXE (25 mg daily) or placebo (PLAC) for 12 months and followed for a total of 24 months. The primary endpoint was change in percent breast density (PD) between the baseline and 12-month mammograms and secondary endpoints were changes in serum lipid levels, bone biomarkers, and bone mineral density (BMD). Ninety-eight women were randomized (49 to EXE; 49 to PLAC) and 65 had PD data at baseline and 12 months. Among women treated with EXE, PD was not significantly changed from baseline at 6, 12, or 24 months and was not different from PLAC. EXE was associated with significant percentage increase from baseline in N-telopeptide at 12 months compared with PLAC. No differences in percent change from baseline in BMD (lumbar spine and femoral neck) were observed between EXE and PLAC at either 12 or 24 months. Patients on EXE had a significantly larger percent decrease in total cholesterol than in the PLAC arm at 6 months and in HDL cholesterol at 3, 6, and 12 months. No significant differences in percent change in LDL or triglycerides were noted at any time point between the two treatment arms. EXE administered for 1 year to healthy postmenopausal women did not result in significant changes in mammographic density. A reversible increase in the bone resorption marker N-telopeptide without significant change in bone specific alkaline phosphatase or BMD during the 12 months treatment period and 1 year later was noted. Changes in lipid parameters on this trial were modest and reversible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Cigler
- Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Wu X, Subramaniam M, Negron V, Lingle WL, Goetz MP, Ingle JN, Spelsberg TC, Hawse JR. Abstract P2-09-25: ERα Expression in Breast Cancer: A Conundrum of Antibody Specificity? Cancer Res 2010. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-p2-09-25] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The role of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) in breast cancer has been studied extensively, and its protein expression is prognostic and a primary determinant of endocrine sensitivity; however, much less is known about the role of ERß. In vitro studies demonstrate a tumor suppressive function for ERß, and we have recently implicated a role for ERα in sensitizing ERα expressing breast cancer cells to the anti-estrogenic effects of endoxifen. However, the in vivo relevance of ERα remains unclear due to conflicting reports. Here, we provide evidence that some of this controversy may be explained by variability in antibody specificity. In addition, we describe the development and characterization of a novel, highly specific monoclonal antibody and provide data regarding ERα expression in human breast cancers.
Methods: Five commercially available ERα antibodies were screened for their sensitivity and specificity using western blotting, immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry in known ERα negative and positive cell lines as well as in normal human tissue samples. A novel monoclonal ERα antibody (C10) was developed and characterized in the same manner. Following identification of two specific antibodies, ERα expression was assessed in 66 breast tumors collected prior to adjuvant therapy. Samples were scored separately for nuclear and cytoplasmic staining.
Results: In depth analysis of commercially available ERα antibodies reveled that the majority were non-specific with substantial cross-reactivity to ERα . Only one commercial antibody (PPG5/10), which solely recognizes full-length ERß, and our newly developed monoclonal antibody, which recognizes full-length and all 4 ERα variants, were determined to be sensitive and specific for ERα expression. These same two antibodies resulted in strong staining for endogenous levels of ERα protein in normal prostate tissue by immunohistochemistry. We further assessed these two antibodies in a set of breast tumors. Preliminary analysis revealed significant differences for ERα positivity between these two antibodies. Based on nuclear staining, 92% of tumors were ERα positive using the PPG5/10 antibody while only 34% were positive with C10. Approximately 50% of all tumors exhibited cytoplasmic staining with both antibodies. Conclusions: Our studies demonstrate that the majority of commercially available ERα antibodies are either non-specific or insensitive for the detection of ERα via immunohistochemistry. The present data call into question the relevance of prior studies which tested the association between clinical outcome and ERα expression and demonstrate the need to further analyze the role of ERα in breast cancer using highly specific and validated antibodies. While both the PPG5/10 and C10 antibodies are highly specific for ERß, the significant discrepancy in nuclear staining between them in breast tumors may be due to changes in epitope availability as a result of post-translational processing. Our newly developed C10 antibody could provide additional discriminatory features which may be useful in predicting response to therapy and/or associations with other clinicopathological factors and such studies are currently underway.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-25.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- X Wu
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Sgroi DC, Finkelstein DM, Shepherd L, Ingle JN, Rimm DL, Sasano H, Porter P, Pins M, Paik S, Ristimaki A, Pritchard KI, Tu D, Goss PE. Abstract P3-10-26: Quantitative Protein and Gene Expression Biomarkers of Tamoxifen and Letrozole Recurrence in the NCIC CTG MA.17 Cohort. Cancer Res 2010. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs10-p3-10-26] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The MA.17 study showed that extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole (LET) after completing 5 years of tamoxifen (TAM) markedly reduced the risk of recurrence in women with ER+ early stage breast cancer and improved overall survival in women presenting with node +ve disease. The HOXB 13:IL17BR gene expression ratio (signature) has been shown to predict outcome in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen monotherapy and provides additional information beyond that from known positive (ER and PR) and negative (Her-1 and Her-2) predictors of responsiveness to tamoxifen in node-ve women. We report a case control evaluation of the Breast Cancer Index (BCI; bioTheranostics, Inc.), which combines the HOXB13 and IL17BR twogene and the molecular grade index (MGI) gene expression signatures, with respect to distinguishing which patients are at risk of late recurrences and who would respond to extended endocrine therapy with LET. The prognostic and predictive utility of quantitative immunofluorescence of ER, PR, Her-2, tumor aromatase, COX-2, GATA3 and Nat1 in the TAM-PLACEBO and the TAM-LET cohorts will also be evaluated and compared to results derived by standard immunohistochemistry. Methods: FFPE tumor blocks were collected from patients who experienced a breast cancer recurrence up to unblinding of MA.17. Controls were matched 2:1 for age, tumor size, lymph node status, and prior chemotherapy, and were all disease free for longer than cases. All cases were reviewed for standard histopathology by two independent pathologists. RNA was extracted, amplified, converted to cDNA and subjected to RT-PCR with primers and probes to HOXB13, IL17BR, BUB1A, CENPA, NEK2, RACGAP1 and RRM2. ER, PR HER1, HER2, COX2, Aromatase, GATA3 and NAT1 will be analyzed by routine IHC techniques and by immunoflourescent Automated Quantitative Analysis (AQuA).
Results: 105 cases and 210 matched controls are available for evaluation. All sections are under review and tissue microarrays have been performed on all cases and controls. Detailed results on the BCI and ER, PR, Her-2 will be available at the SABCS.
Discussion: MA.17 has shown that extended adjuvant endocrine therapy after tamoxifen is effective at preventing disease recurrence given for an additional 5 years. Numerous clinical trials are exploring whether extending AIs will show this benefit, and there is an increasing need to improve the therapeutic index by distinguishing those at risk from those who are not. It is also important to determine which patients will benefit from the therapy and which will recur without benefit. The latter patients could be triaged to clinical trials of novel therapies to overcome endocrine resistance. This study will help to define these issues and pave the way for more effective selection of specific patients for adjuvant endocrine strategies.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-26.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- DC Sgroi
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - DM Finkelstein
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - L Shepherd
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - JN Ingle
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - DL Rimm
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - H Sasano
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - P Porter
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - M Pins
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - S Paik
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - A Ristimaki
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - KI Pritchard
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - D Tu
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - PE Goss
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Tohoku University School of Medicine, Japan; University of Washington Medicine, Seattle; Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, IL; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pittsburgh, PA; University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 8, Finland; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Patel TA, Liu H, Hillman DW, Dueck AC, Ingle JN, Roy V, Hobday TJ, Northfelt DW, Perez EA. Clinical characteristics, univariate, and multivariate Cox model analysis of long-term (> 3 years) survivors of stage IV metastatic breast cancer treated on phase II or III North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trials. J Clin Oncol 2010. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.1157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
49
|
Block MS, Markovic S, Northfelt DW, Mukherjee P, Pockaj BA, Nevala WK, Ingle JN, Perez EA, Suman V, Gendler SJ. MUC1/HER2/neu peptide-based immunotherapeutic vaccines for breast adenocarcinomas. J Clin Oncol 2010. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.tps113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
50
|
Bardia A, Huang P, Zhang Z, Sokoll L, Ingle JN, Carey LA, Lin NU, Nanda R, Visvanathan K, Wolff AC. Circulating tumor cell (CTC) and CA2729 as predictors of outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the prospective TBCRC 005 biomarker study. J Clin Oncol 2010. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.1001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|