Genomic profile of advanced breast cancer in circulating tumour DNA.

The genomics of advanced breast cancer (ABC) has been described through tumour tissue biopsy sequencing, although these approaches are limited by geographical and temporal heterogeneity. Here we use plasma circulating tumour DNA sequencing to interrogate the genomic profile of ABC in 800 patients in the plasmaMATCH trial. We demonstrate diverse subclonal resistance mutations, including enrichment of HER2 mutations in HER2 positive disease, co-occurring ESR1 and MAP kinase pathway mutations in HR + HER2- disease that associate with poor overall survival (p = 0.0092), and multiple PIK3CA mutations in HR + disease that associate with short progression free survival on fulvestrant (p = 0.0036). The fraction of cancer with a mutation, the clonal dominance of a mutation, varied between genes, and within hotspot mutations of ESR1 and PIK3CA. In ER-positive breast cancer subclonal mutations were enriched in an APOBEC mutational signature, with second hit PIK3CA mutations acquired subclonally and at sites characteristic of APOBEC mutagenesis. This study utilises circulating tumour DNA analysis in a large clinical trial to demonstrate the subclonal diversification of pre-treated advanced breast cancer, identifying distinct mutational processes in advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and novel therapeutic opportunities.

PIK3CA mutation enrichment and quantitation from blood and tissue.

PIK3CA is one of the two most frequently mutated genes in breast cancers, occurring in 30-40% of cases. Four frequent 'hotspot' PIK3CA mutations (E542K, E545K, H1047R and H1047L) account for 80-90% of all PIK3CA mutations in human malignancies and represent predictive biomarkers. Here we describe a PIK3CA mutation specific nuclease-based enrichment assay, which combined with a low-cost real-time qPCR detection method, enhances assay detection sensitivity from 5% for E542K and 10% for E545K to 0.6%, and from 5% for H1047R to 0.3%. Moreover, we present a novel flexible prediction method to calculate initial mutant allele frequency in tissue biopsy and blood samples with low mutant fraction. These advancements demonstrated a quick, accurate and simple detection and quantitation of PIK3CA mutations in two breast cancer cohorts (first cohort n = 22, second cohort n = 25). Hence this simple, versatile and informative workflow could be applicable for routine diagnostic testing where quantitative results are essential, e.g. disease monitoring subject to validation in a substantial future study.

ESR1 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.

Comparison of BEAMing and Droplet Digital PCR for Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays are increasingly used for clinical decision-making, but it is unknown how well different assays agree. We aimed to assess the agreement in ctDNA mutation calling between BEAMing (beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), 2 of the most commonly used digital PCR techniques for detecting mutations in ctDNA. METHODS: Baseline plasma samples from patients with advanced breast cancer enrolled in the phase 3 PALOMA-3 trial were assessed for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations in ctDNA with both BEAMing and ddPCR. Concordance between the 2 approaches was assessed, with exploratory analyses to estimate the importance of sampling effects. RESULTS: Of the 521 patients enrolled, 363 had paired baseline ctDNA analysis. ESR1 mutation detection was 24.2% (88/363) for BEAMing and 25.3% (92/363) for ddPCR, with good agreement between the 2 techniques (κ = 0.9l; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95). PIK3CA mutation detection rates were 26.2% (95/363) for BEAMing and 22.9% (83/363) for ddPCR, with good agreement (κ = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93). Discordancy was observed for 3.9% patients with ESR1 mutations and 5.0% with PIK3CA mutations. Assessment of individual mutations suggested higher rates of discordancy for less common mutations (P = 0.019). The majority of discordant calls occurred at allele frequency <1%, predominantly resulting from stochastic sampling effects. CONCLUSIONS: This large, clinically relevant comparison showed good agreement between BEAMing and ddPCR, suggesting sufficient reproducibility for clinical use. Much of the observed discordancy may be related to sampling effects, potentially explaining many of the differences in the currently available ctDNA literature.

Assessment of Molecular Relapse Detection in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Importance: Current treatment cures most cases of early-stage, primary breast cancer. However, better techniques are required to identify which patients are at risk of relapse. Objective: To assess the clinical validity of molecular relapse detection with circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in early-stage breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter, sample collection, validation study conducted at 5 United Kingdom medical centers from November 24, 2011, to October 18, 2016, assessed patients with early-stage breast cancer irrespective of hormone receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu) status who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery before adjuvant chemotherapy. The study recruited 170 women, with mutations identified in 101 patients forming the main cohort. Secondary analyses were conducted on a combined cohort of 144 patients, including 43 patients previously analyzed in a proof of principle study. Interventions: Primary tumor was sequenced to identify somatic mutations, and personalized tumor-specific digital polymerase chain reaction assays were used to monitor these mutations in serial plasma samples taken every 3 months for the first year of follow-up and subsequently every 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was relapse-free survival analyzed with Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: In the main cohort of 101 female patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [11] years) with a median follow-up of 35.5 months (interquartile range, 27.9-43.0 months), detection of ctDNA during follow-up was associated with relapse (hazard ratio, 25.2; 95% CI, 6.7-95.6; P < .001). Detection of ctDNA at diagnosis, before any treatment, was also associated with relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.2-27.1; P = .01). In the combined cohort, ctDNA detection had a median lead time of 10.7 months (95% CI, 8.1-19.1 months) compared with clinical relapse and was associated with relapse in all breast cancer subtypes. Distant extracranial metastatic relapse was detected by ctDNA in 22 of 23 patients (96%). Brain-only metastasis was less commonly detected by ctDNA (1 of 6 patients [17%]), suggesting relapse sites less readily detectable by ctDNA analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that detection of ctDNA during follow-up is associated with a high risk of future relapse of early-stage breast cancer. Prospective studies are needed to assess the potential of molecular relapse detection to guide adjuvant therapy.

Early circulating tumor DNA dynamics and clonal selection with palbociclib and fulvestrant for breast cancer.

CDK4/6 inhibition substantially improves progression-free survival (PFS) for women with advanced estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, although there are no predictive biomarkers. Early changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) level may provide early response prediction, but the impact of tumor heterogeneity is unknown. Here we use plasma samples from patients in the randomized phase III PALOMA-3 study of CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and fulvestrant for women with advanced breast cancer and show that relative change in PIK3CA ctDNA level after 15 days treatment strongly predicts PFS on palbociclib and fulvestrant (hazard ratio 3.94, log-rank p = 0.0013). ESR1 mutations selected by prior hormone therapy are shown to be frequently sub clonal, with ESR1 ctDNA dynamics offering limited prediction of clinical outcome. These results suggest that early ctDNA dynamics may provide a robust biomarker for CDK4/6 inhibitors, with early ctDNA dynamics demonstrating divergent response of tumor sub clones to treatment.

Single-Cell Dynamics Determines Response to CDK4/6 Inhibition in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous subgroup of breast cancer that is associated with a poor prognosis. We evaluated the activity of CDK4/6 inhibitors across the TNBC subtypes and investigated mechanisms of sensitivity.Experimental Design: A panel of cell lines representative of TNBC was tested for in vitro and in vivo sensitivity to CDK4/6 inhibition. A fluorescent CDK2 activity reporter was used for single-cell analysis in conjunction with time-lapse imaging.Results: The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype of TNBC was highly sensitive to CDK4/6 inhibition both in vitro (P < 0.001 LAR vs. basal-like) and in vivo in MDA-MB-453 LAR cell line xenografts. Single-cell analysis of CDK2 activity demonstrated differences in cell-cycle dynamics between LAR and basal-like cells. Palbociclib-sensitive LAR cells exit mitosis with low levels of CDK2 activity, into a quiescent state that requires CDK4/6 activity for cell-cycle reentry. Palbociclib-resistant basal-like cells exit mitosis directly into a proliferative state, with high levels of CDK2 activity, bypassing the restriction point and the requirement for CDK4/6 activity. High CDK2 activity after mitosis is driven by temporal deregulation of cyclin E1 expression. CDK4/6 inhibitors were synergistic with PI3 kinase inhibitors in PIK3CA-mutant TNBC cell lines, extending CDK4/6 inhibitor sensitivity to additional TNBC subtypes.Conclusions: Cell-cycle dynamics determine the response to CDK4/6 inhibition in TNBC. CDK4/6 inhibitors, alone and in combination, are a novel therapeutic strategy for specific subgroups of TNBC. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5561-72. ©2017 AACR.

Reproducibility of Digital PCR Assays for Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Advanced Breast Cancer.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has the potential to allow non-invasive analysis of tumor mutations in advanced cancer. In this study we assessed the reproducibility of digital PCR (dPCR) assays of circulating tumor DNA in a cohort of patients with advanced breast cancer and assessed delayed plasma processing using cell free DNA preservative tubes. We recruited a cohort of 96 paired samples from 71 women with advanced breast cancer who had paired blood samples processed either immediately or delayed in preservative tubes with processing 48-72 hours after collection. Plasma DNA was analysed with multiplex digital PCR (mdPCR) assays for hotspot mutations in PIK3CA, ESR1 and ERBB2, and for AKT1 E17K. There was 94.8% (91/96) agreement in mutation calling between immediate and delayed processed tubes, kappa 0.88 95% CI 0.77-0.98). Discordance in mutation calling resulted from low allele frequency and likely stochastic effects. In concordant samples there was high correlation in mutant copies per ml plasma (r2 = 0.98; p<0.0001). There was elevation of total cell free plasma DNA concentrations in 10.3% of delayed processed tubes, although overall quantification of total cell free plasma DNA had similar prognostic effects in immediate (HR 3.6) and delayed (HR 3.0) tubes. There was moderate agreement in changes in allele fraction between sequential samples in quantitative mutation tracking (r = 0.84, p = 0.0002). Delayed processing of samples using preservative tubes allows for centralized ctDNA digital PCR mutation screening in advanced breast cancer. The potential of preservative tubes in quantitative mutation tracking requires further research.

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

PURPOSE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.