<i>ESR1</i> Mutations and Overall Survival on Fulvestrant versus Exemestane in Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Combined Analysis of the Phase III SoFEA and EFECT Trials.

Purpose ESR1 mutations are acquired frequently in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer after prior aromatase inhibitors. We assessed the clinical utility of baseline ESR1 circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in the two phase III randomized trials of fulvestrant versus exemestane.Experimental design The phase III EFECT and SoFEA trials randomized patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, between fulvestrant 250 mg and exemestane. Baseline serum samples from 227 patients in EFECT, and baseline plasma from 161 patients in SoFEA, were analyzed for ESR1 mutations by digital PCR. The primary objectives were to assess the impact of ESR1 mutation status on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a combined analysis of both studies.Results ESR1 mutations were detected in 30% (151/383) baseline samples. In patients with ESR1 mutation detected, PFS was 2.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-2.6] on exemestane and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0-6.0) on fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.89; P = 0.01). In patients without ESR1 mutations detected, PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.7-6.2) on exemestane and 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-5.5) on fulvestrant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.37; P = 0.69). There was an interaction between ESR1 mutation and treatment (P = 0.02). Patients with ESR1 mutation detected had 1-year OS of 62% (95% CI, 45%-75%) on exemestane and 80% (95% CI, 68%-87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.04; restricted mean survival analysis). Patients without ESR1 mutations detected had 1-year OS of 79% (95% CI, 71%-85%) on exemestane and 81% (95% CI, 74%-87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.69).Conclusions Detection of ESR1 mutations in baseline ctDNA is associated with inferior PFS and OS in patients treated with exemestane versus fulvestrant

Tracking evolution of aromatase inhibitor resistance with circulating tumour DNA analysis in metastatic breast cancer.

Background:Selection of resistance mutations may play a major role in the development of endocrine resistance. ESR1 mutations are rare in primary breast cancer but have high prevalence in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) for advanced breast cancer. We investigated the evolution of genetic resistance to the first-line AI therapy using sequential ctDNA sampling in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods:Eighty-three patients on the first-line AI therapy for metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months to disease progression and ctDNA analysed by digital droplet PCR and enhanced tagged-amplicon sequencing (eTAm-Seq). Mutations identified in progression samples by sequencing were tracked back through samples before progression to study the evolution of mutations on therapy. The frequency of novel mutations was validated in an independent cohort of available baseline plasma samples in the Study of Faslodex versus Exemestane with or without Arimidex (SoFEA) trial, which enrolled patients with prior sensitivity to AI. Results:Of the 39 patients who progressed on the first-line AI, 56.4% (22/39) had ESR1 mutations detectable at progression, which were polyclonal in 40.9% (9/22) patients. In serial tracking, ESR1 mutations were detectable median 6.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-NA) before clinical progression. Utilising eTAm-Seq ctDNA sequencing of progression plasma, ESR1 mutations were demonstrated to be sub-clonal in 72.2% (13/18) patients. Mutations in RAS genes were identified in 15.4% (6/39) of progressing patients (4 KRAS, 1 HRAS, 1 NRAS). In SoFEA, KRAS mutations were detected in 21.2% (24/113) patients although there was no evidence that KRAS mutation status was prognostic for progression free or overall survival. Conclusions:Cancers progressing on the first-line AI show high levels of genetic heterogeneity, with frequent sub-clonal mutations. Sub-clonal KRAS mutations are found at high frequency. The genetic diversity of AI resistant cancers may limit subsequent targeted therapy approaches

Plasma ESR1 Mutations and the Treatment of Estrogen Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

ESR1 mutations are selected by prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in advanced breast cancer. We assessed the impact of ESR1 mutations on sensitivity to standard therapies in two phase III randomized trials that represent the development of the current standard therapy for estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.In a prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed ESR1 mutations in available archived baseline plasma from the SoFEA (Study of Faslodex Versus Exemestane With or Without Arimidex) trial, which compared exemestane with fulvestrant-containing regimens in patients with prior sensitivity to nonsteroidal AI and in baseline plasma from the PALOMA3 (Palbociclib Combined With Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer After Endocrine Failure) trial, which compared fulvestrant plus placebo with fulvestrant plus palbociclib in patients with progression after receiving prior endocrine therapy. ESR1 mutations were analyzed by multiplex digital polymerase chain reaction.In SoFEA, ESR1 mutations were found in 39.1% of patients (63 of 161), of whom 49.1% (27 of 55) were polyclonal, with rates of mutation detection unaffected by delays in processing of archival plasma. Patients with ESR1 mutations had improved progression-free survival (PFS) after taking fulvestrant (n = 45) compared with exemestane (n = 18; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; P = .02), whereas patients with wild-type ESR1 had similar PFS after receiving either treatment (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.67; P = .77). In PALOMA3, ESR1 mutations were found in the plasma of 25.3% of patients (91 of 360), of whom 28.6% (26 of 91) were polyclonal, with mutations associated with acquired resistance to prior AI. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib improved PFS compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in both ESR1 mutant (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.74; P = .002) and ESR1 wild-type patients (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.70; P < .001).ESR1 mutation analysis in plasma after progression after prior AI therapy may help direct choice of further endocrine-based therapy. Additional confirmatory studies are required

Phylogenetic analysis of metastatic progression in breast cancer using somatic mutations and copy number aberrations.

Several studies using genome-wide molecular techniques have reported various degrees of genetic heterogeneity between primary tumours and their distant metastases. However, it has been difficult to discern patterns of dissemination owing to the limited number of patients and available metastases. Here, we use phylogenetic techniques on data generated using whole-exome sequencing and copy number profiling of primary and multiple-matched metastatic tumours from ten autopsied patients to infer the evolutionary history of breast cancer progression. We observed two modes of disease progression. In some patients, all distant metastases cluster on a branch separate from their primary lesion. Clonal frequency analyses of somatic mutations show that the metastases have a monoclonal origin and descend from a common 'metastatic precursor'. Alternatively, multiple metastatic lesions are seeded from different clones present within the primary tumour. We further show that a metastasis can be horizontally cross-seeded. These findings provide insights into breast cancer dissemination

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Immunogenicity in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer Receiving Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers have an increased risk of serious complications and death from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The immunogenicity of vaccines in patients with GI cancers receiving anti-cancer therapies is unclear. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the prevalence of neutralizing antibodies in a cohort of GI cancer patients receiving chemotherapy following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between September 2020 and April 2021, patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy were enrolled. At baseline (day 0), days 28, 56, and 84, we assessed serum antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NP) and concomitantly assessed virus neutralization using a pseudovirus neutralization assay. Patients received either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, or the Oxford/AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine. RESULTS: All 152 patients enrolled had a prior diagnosis of cancer; colorectal (n = 80, 52.6%), oesophagogastric (n = 38, 25.0%), and hepato pancreatic biliary (n = 22, 12.5%). Nearly all were receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy (99.3%). Of the 51 patients who did not receive a vaccination prior to, or during the study, 5 patients had detectable anti-NP antibodies. Ninety-nine patients received at least one dose of vaccine prior to, or during the study. Within 19 days following the first dose of vaccine, 30.0% had anti-S detected in serum which increased to 70.2% at days 20-39. In the 19 days following a second dose, anti-S positivity was 84.2% (32/38). However, pseudovirus neutralization titers (pVNT80) decreased from days 20 to 39. CONCLUSION: Despite the immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy, 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are able to elicit a protective immune response in patients' ongoing treatment for gastrointestinal cancers. Decreases in pseudoviral neutralization were observed after 20-39 days, re-affirming the current recommendation for vaccine booster doses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04427280

Diverse BRCA1 and BRCA2 Reversion Mutations in Circulating Cell-Free DNA of Therapy-Resistant Breast or Ovarian Cancer

Purpose:; Resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy or PARP inhibition in germline; BRCA1; or; BRCA2; mutation carriers may occur through somatic reversion mutations or intragenic deletions that restore BRCA1 or BRCA2 function. We assessed whether; BRCA1/2; reversion mutations could be identified in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of patients with ovarian or breast cancer previously treated with platinum and/or PARP inhibitors.; Experimental Design:; cfDNA from 24 prospectively accrued patients with germline; BRCA1; or; BRCA2; mutations, including 19 patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer and five patients with platinum and/or PARP inhibitor pretreated metastatic breast cancer, was subjected to massively parallel sequencing targeting all exons of 141 genes and all exons and introns of; BRCA1; and; BRCA2; Functional studies were performed to assess the impact of the putative; BRCA1/2; reversion mutations on BRCA1/2 function.; Results:; Diverse and often polyclonal putative; BRCA1; or; BRCA2; reversion mutations were identified in cfDNA from four patients with ovarian cancer (21%) and from two patients with breast cancer (40%).; BRCA2; reversion mutations were detected in cfDNA prior to PARP inhibitor treatment in a patient with breast cancer who did not respond to treatment and were enriched in plasma samples after PARP inhibitor therapy. Foci formation and immunoprecipitation assays suggest that a subset of the putative reversion mutations restored BRCA1/2 function.; Conclusions:; Putative; BRCA1/2; reversion mutations can be detected by cfDNA sequencing analysis in patients with ovarian and breast cancer. Our findings warrant further investigation of cfDNA sequencing to identify putative; BRCA1/2; reversion mutations and to aid the selection of patients for PARP inhibition therapy.; Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6708-20. ©2017 AACR;

Accurate prediction of response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer patients: current and future biomarkers

WOS: 000390900700001PubMed ID: 27903276Approximately 70% of patients have breast cancers that are oestrogen receptor alpha positive (ER+) and are therefore candidates for endocrine treatment. Many of these patients relapse in the years during or following completion of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Thus, many ER+ cancers have primary resistance or develop resistance to endocrine therapy during treatment. Recent improvements in our understanding of how tumours evolve during treatment with endocrine agents have identified both changes in gene expression and mutational profiles, in the primary cancer as well as in circulating tumour cells. Analysing these changes has the potential to improve the prediction of which specific patients will respond to endocrine treatment. Serially profiled biopsies during treatment in the neoadjuvant setting offer promise for accurate and early prediction of response to both current and novel drugs and allow investigation of mechanisms of resistance. In addition, recent advances in monitoring tumour evolution through non-invasive (liquid) sampling of circulating tumour cells and cell-free tumour DNA may provide a method to detect resistant clones and allow implementation of personalized treatments for metastatic breast cancer patients. This review summarises current and future biomarkers and signatures for predicting response to endocrine treatment, and discusses the potential for using approved drugs and novel agents to improve outcomes. Increased prediction accuracy is likely to require sequential sampling, utilising preoperative or neoadjuvant treatment and/or liquid biopsies and an improved understanding of both the dynamics and heterogeneity of breast cancer.European CommissionEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre [658170]This work was funded by the European Commission H2020 Marie Sklodowska Curie Action Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF, 658170) to CS and Breast Cancer Now to JMD and AHS

Abiraterone shows alternate activity in models of endocrine resistant and sensitive disease

BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine therapy remains a major clinical problem in the treatment of oestrogen-receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. Studies show androgen-receptor (AR) remains present in 80-90% of metastatic breast cancers providing support for blockade of AR-signalling. However, clinical studies with abiraterone, which blocks cytochrome P450 17A1 (CYP17A1) showed limited benefit. METHODS: In order to address this, we assessed the impact of abiraterone on cell-viability, cell-death, ER-mediated transactivation and recruitment to target promoters. together with ligand-binding assays in a panel of ER+ breast cancer cell lines that were either oestrogen-dependent, modelling endocrine-sensitive disease, or oestrogen-independent modelling relapse on an aromatase inhibitor. The latter, harboured wild-type (wt) or naturally occurring ESR1 mutations. RESULTS: Similar to oestrogen, abiraterone showed paradoxical impact on proliferation by stimulating cell growth or death, depending on whether the cells are hormone-dependent or have undergone prolonged oestrogen-deprivation, respectively. Abiraterone increased ER-turnover, induced ER-mediated transactivation and ER-degradation via the proteasome. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the oestrogenic activity of abiraterone and highlights its differential impact on cells dependent on oestrogen for their proliferation vs. those that are ligand-independent and harbour wt or mutant ESR1. These properties could impact the clinical efficacy of abiraterone in breast cancer