Intrinsic Subtypes and Gene Expression Profiles in Primary and Metastatic Breast Cancer

Biological changes that occur during metastatic progression of breast cancer are still incompletely characterized. In this study, we compared intrinsic molecular subtypes and gene expression in 123 paired primary and metastatic tissues from breast cancer patients. Intrinsic subtype was identified using a PAM50 classifier and χ 2 tests determined the differences in variable distribution. The rate of subtype conversion was 0% in basal-like tumors, 23.1% in HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors, 30.0% in luminal B tumors, and 55.3% in luminal A tumors. In 40.2% of cases, luminal A tumors converted to luminal B tumors, whereas in 14.3% of cases luminal A and B tumors converted to HER2-E tumors. We identified 47 genes that were expressed differentially in metastatic versus primary disease. Metastatic tumors were enriched for proliferation-related and migration-related genes and diminished for luminal-related genes. Expression of proliferation-related genes were better at predicting overall survival in metastatic disease (OSmet) when analyzed in metastatic tissue rather than primary tissue. In contrast, a basal-like gene expression signature was better at predicting OSmet in primary disease compared with metastatic tissue. We observed correlations between time to tumor relapse and the magnitude of changes of proliferation, luminal B, or HER2-E signatures in metastatic versus primary disease. Although the intrinsic subtype was largely maintained during metastatic progression, luminal/HER2-negative tumors acquired a luminal B or HER2-E profile during metastatic progression, likely reflecting tumor evolution or acquisition of estrogen independence. Overall, our analysis revealed the value of stratifying gene expression by both cancer subtype and tissue type, providing clinicians more refined tools to evaluate prognosis and treatment. Cancer Res; 77(9); 1-9. ©2017 AACR

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Intrinsic subtypes and gene expression profiles in primary and metastatic breast cancer

Biological changes that occur during metastatic progression of breast cancer are still incompletely characterized. In this study, we compared intrinsic molecular subtypes and gene expression in 123 paired primary and metastatic tissues from breast cancer patients. Intrinsic subtype was identified using a PAM50 classifier and χ2 tests determined the differences in variable distribution. The rate of subtype conversion was 0% in basal-like tumors, 23.1% in HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors, 30.0% in luminal B tumors, and 55.3% in luminal A tumors. In 40.2% of cases, luminal A tumors converted to luminal B tumors, whereas in 14.3% of cases luminal A and B tumors converted to HER2-E tumors. We identified 47 genes that were expressed differentially in metastatic versus primary disease. Metastatic tumors were enriched for proliferation-related and migration-related genes and diminished for luminal-related genes. Expression of proliferation-related genes were better at predicting overall survival in metastatic disease (OSmet) when analyzed in metastatic tissue rather than primary tissue. In contrast, a basal-like gene expression signature was better at predicting OSmet in primary disease compared with metastatic tissue. We observed correlations between time to tumor relapse and the magnitude of changes of proliferation, luminal B, or HER2-E signatures in metastatic versus primary disease. Although the intrinsic subtype was largely maintained during metastatic progression, luminal/HER2-negative tumors acquired a luminal B or HER2-E profile during metastatic progression, likely reflecting tumor evolution or acquisition of estrogen independence. Overall, our analysis revealed the value of stratifying gene expression by both cancer subtype and tissue type, providing clinicians more refined tools to evaluate prognosis and treatment.This work was supported by funds from Instituto de Salud Carlos III - PI13/01718 (A.P.), by a Career Catalyst Grant from the Susan Komen Foundation (A.P.), by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) Foundation (A.P.) and by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This work was also supported by funds from FEDER (RETICC): RD12/0036/0076 (JA), RD12/0036/0051 (JA), RD12/0036/0070 (AL) and RD12/0036/0076 (MM). JMC holds a fellowship from “PhD4MD”, a Collaborative Research Training Programme for Medical Doctors (IDIBAPS, August Pi i Sunyer Institute for Biomedical Research and IRB Barcelona, Institute for Research in Biomedicine) partially funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, (ISCIII, project: II14/00019). JMC and RRG research support is provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation grant SAF2013-46196 (FEDER Funds) and the Generalitat de Catalunya AGAUR 2014-SGR grant 535

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health