Prediction of fulvestrant efficacy in patients with advanced breast cancer: retrospective-prospective evaluation of the predictive potential of a multigene expression assay.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant is a selective oestrogen receptor (ER) degrader used as monotherapy and combination therapy for ER positive HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal women. The drug response predictor (DRP), is a mathematical algorithm based on the expression of multiple genes in the tumour. The fulvestrant DRP algorithm has previously shown effect in BC. In this study, we investigated the DRP's potential in predicting fulvestrant benefit. METHOD: Among 695 patients with ABC prospectively included in a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) cohort we retrospectively included 226 patients who received fulvestrant as monotherapy. The DRP result was based on mRNA extracted from tumour biopsies and analysed using Affymetrix array. Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). RESULTS: For patients who received fulvestrant in line one to four and were previously unexposed to adjuvant endocrine therapy, we identified a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.44 (90% confidence interval (90% CI) upper limit of 1.08, one sided p = 0.066) for a predicted positive vs negative outcome. A weaker association was seen when including patients exposed to adjuvant endocrine treatment or received fulvestrant in fifth or later lines. Exploratory analyses showed that the DRP was efficient when using recent biopsies for DRP estimate and among recently treated patients. CONCLUSION: The DRP showed a potential in predicting fulvestrant treatment but was not significant in the overall analysis. Use of older biopsies, long-term endocrine treatment and multiple therapies between biopsy used for analysis and fulvestrant treatment, probably affect the predictive accuracy.

Molecular prediction of adjuvant cisplatin efficacy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)-validation in two independent cohorts.

INTRODUCTION: Effective predictive biomarkers for selection of patients benefiting from adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed. Based on a previously validated methodology, molecular profiles of predicted sensitivity in two patient cohorts are presented. METHODS: The profiles are correlations between in vitro sensitivity to cisplatin and vinorelbine and baseline mRNA expression of the 60 cell lines in the National Cancer Institute panel. An applied clinical samples filter focused the profiles to clinically relevant genes. The profiles were tested on 1) snap-frozen tumors from 133 patients with completely resected stage 1B-2 NSCLC randomized to adjuvant cisplatin and vinorelbine (ACV, n = 71) or no adjuvant treatment (OBS, n = 62) and 2) formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors from 95 patients with completely resected stage 1A-3B NSCLC receiving adjuvant cisplatin and vinorelbine. RESULTS: The combined cisplatin and vinorelbine profiles showed: 1) univariate Hazard Ratio (HR) for sensitive versus resistant of 0.265 (95% CI:0.079-0.889, p = 0.032) in the ACV cohort and a HR of 0.28 in a multivariate model (95% CI:0.08-1.04, p = 0.0573); 2) significant prediction at 3 year survival from surgery in univariate (HR = 0.138 (95% CI:0.035-0.537), p = 0.004) and multivariate analysis (HR = 0.14 (95% CI:0.030-0.6), p = 0.0081). No discrimination was found in the OBS cohort (HR = 1.328, p = 0.60). The cisplatin predictor alone had similar figures with 1) univariate HR of 0.37 (95% CI:0.12-1.15, p = 0.09) in the ACV cohort and 2) univariate HR of 0.14 (95% CI:0.03-0.59, p = 0.0076) to three years. Functional analysis on the cisplatin profile revealed a group of upregulated genes related to RNA splicing as a part of DNA damage repair and apoptosis. CONCLUSIONS: Profiles derived from snap-frozen and FFPE NSCLC tissue were prognostic and predictive in the patients that received cisplatin and vinorelbine but not in the cohort that did not receive adjuvant treatment.

Cell Line Derived 5-FU and Irinotecan Drug-Sensitivity Profiles Evaluated in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Trial Data.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether gene signatures for chemosensitivity for irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) derived from in vitro grown cancer cell lines can predict clinical sensitivity to these drugs. METHODS: To test if an irinotecan signature and a SN-38 signature could identify patients who benefitted from the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU, we used gene expression profiles based on cell lines and clinical tumor material. These profiles were applied to expression data obtained from pretreatment formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue from 636 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in the PETACC-3 prospective randomized clinical trial. A 5-FU profile developed similarly was assessed by comparing the PETACC-3 cohort with a cohort of 359 stage II colon cancer patients who underwent surgery but received no adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant association between the irinotecan or SN-38 profiles and benefit from irinotecan. The 5-FU sensitivity profile showed a statistically significant association with relapse free survival (RFS) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54 (0.41-0.71), p<1e-05) and overall survival (HR = 0.47 (0.34-0.63), p<1e-06) in the PETACC-3 subpopulation. The effect of the 5-FU profile remained significant in a multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusting for several relevant clinicopathological parameters. No statistically significant effect of the 5-FU profile was observed in the untreated cohort of 359 patients (relapse free survival, p = 0.671). CONCLUSION: The irinotecan predictor had no predictive value. The 5-FU predictor was prognostic in stage III patients in PETACC-3 but not in stage II patients with no adjuvant therapy. This suggests a potential predictive ability of the 5-FU sensitivity profile to identify colon cancer patients who may benefit from 5-FU, however, any biomarker predicting benefit for adjuvant 5-FU must be rigorously evaluated in independent cohorts. Given differences between the two study cohorts, the present results should be further validated.