Molecular subtype and tumor characteristics of breast cancer metastases as assessed by gene expression significantly influence patient post-relapse survival.

BACKGROUND: We and others have recently shown that tumor characteristics are altered throughout tumor progression. These findings emphasize the need for re-examination of tumor characteristics at relapse and have led to recommendations from ESMO and the Swedish Breast Cancer group. Here, we aim to determine whether tumor characteristics and molecular subtypes in breast cancer metastases confer clinically relevant prognostic information for patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The translational aspect of the Swedish multicenter randomized trial called TEX included 111 patients with at least one biopsy from a morphologically confirmed locoregional or distant breast cancer metastasis diagnosed from December 2002 until June 2007. All patients had detailed clinical information, complete follow-up, and metastasis gene expression information (Affymetrix array GPL10379). We assessed the previously published gene expression modules describing biological processes [proliferation, apoptosis, human epidermal receptor 2 (HER2) and estrogen (ER) signaling, tumor invasion, immune response, and angiogenesis] and pathways (Ras, MAPK, PTEN, AKT-MTOR, PI3KCA, IGF1, Src, Myc, E2F3, and ß-catenin) and the intrinsic subtypes (PAM50). Furthermore, by contrasting genes expressed in the metastases in relation to survival, we derived a poor metastasis survival signature. RESULTS: A significant reduction in post-relapse breast cancer-specific survival was associated with low-ER receptor signaling and apoptosis gene module scores, and high AKT-MTOR, Ras, and ß-catenin module scores. Similarly, intrinsic subtyping of the metastases provided statistically significant post-relapse survival information with the worst survival outcome in the basal-like [hazard ratio (HR) 3.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-10.9] and HER2-enriched (HR 4.4; 95% CI 1.5-12.8) subtypes compared with the luminal A subtype. Overall, 25% of the metastases were basal-like, 32% HER2-enriched, 10% luminal A, 28% luminal B, and 5% normal-like. CONCLUSIONS: We show that tumor characteristics and molecular subtypes of breast cancer metastases significantly influence post-relapse patient survival, emphasizing that molecular investigations at relapse provide prognostic and clinically relevant information. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: This is the translational part of the Swedish multicenter and randomized trial TEX, clinicaltrials.gov identifier nct01433614 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/nct01433614).

Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk profiles computed from multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer have been shown to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. We evaluated whether this genetic risk stratification can also be applied to discriminate between screen-detected and interval cancers, which are usually associated with clinicopathological and survival differences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 77 single-nucleotide polymorphism polygenic risk score (PRS) was constructed for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. PRS was inspected as a continuous (per standard deviation increment) variable in a case-only design. Modification of the PRS by mammographic density was evaluated by fitting an additional interaction term. RESULTS: PRS weighted by breast cancer overall estimates was found to be differentially associated with 1865 screen-detected and 782 interval cancers in the LIBRO-1 study {age-adjusted odds ratio (OR)perSD [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P = 0.023}. The association was found to be more significant for PRS weighted by ER-positive breast cancer estimates [ORperSD = 0.90 (0.82-0.98), P = 0.011]. This result was corroborated by two independent studies [combined ORperSD = 0.87 (0.76-1.00), P = 0.058] with no evidence of heterogeneity. When enriched for 'true' interval cancers among nondense breasts, the difference in the association with PRS in screen-detected and interval cancers became more pronounced [ORperSD = 0.74 (0.62-0.89), P = 0.001], with a significant interaction effect between PRS and mammographic density (Pinteraction = 0.017). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report looking into the genetic differences between screen-detected and interval cancers. It is an affirmation that the two types of breast cancer may have unique underlying biology.

Prognostic information of a previously diagnosed sister is an independent prognosticator for a newly diagnosed sister with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survival has been shown to be associated among relatives. In this study, we used a population-based cohort of Swedish sisters, both diagnosed with breast cancer, to determine whether prognostic information of a previously diagnosed sibling is useful for the clinical management of a newly diagnosed sibling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The population-based cohort included all sister pairs, 1617 sisters, diagnosed with breast cancer in Sweden, from 1 January 1992, through 31 December 2006, with complete follow-up. All information was collected manually from original pathology reports and patient records. The Kappa statistic was used to measure the agreement of primary tumor characteristics between the sisters. We modeled the breast cancer-specific survival using multivariate (Cox) proportional hazard analyses in two steps categorizing the older sister's survival. RESULTS: Estrogen receptor status was the only tumor characteristic significantly associated between the sisters [κ 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.089-0.27)]. Younger sisters with poor older sister survival showed significantly worse survival compared with patients with good older sister survival (log rank, P = 0.017). A twofold increased hazard ratio (HR) for death from breast cancer was found in younger sisters with poor older sister survival compared with patients with good sister survival [HR 2.56 (95% CI 1.16-5.65)], adjusting for age and calendar period of diagnosis, socioeconomic factors, number of children and hospital of primary tumor diagnosis. When further adjusting for primary tumor characteristics and adjuvant therapy, the risk for death from breast cancer in younger sisters with poor older sister survival became more pronounced [HR 3.35 (1.34-8.34)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings derived from a population-based cohort of Swedish sister pairs suggest that breast cancer-specific survival is inherited independent of tumor characteristics and treatment in the sibling later diagnosed with the disease. Prognostic information of a previously diagnosed sibling with breast cancer could be important in the clinical management.