ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Risk of recurrence from primary ER+ breast cancer continues for at least 20 years. We aimed to identify clinical and molecular features associated with risk of recurrence after 10 years. METHODS: ER+ breast cancers from patients with and without recurrence were analysed with the BC360 NanoString Panel and an 87 gene targeted-exome panel. Frequency of clinical, pathologic and molecular characteristics was compared between cases (recurred between 10 and 20 years) and controls (no recurrence by 20 years) in the Very Late Recurrence (VLR) cohort. Analogous data from METABRIC were examined to confirm or refute findings. RESULTS: VLR cases had larger tumours and higher node positivity. Both VLR and METABRIC cases had higher clinical treatment score at 5 years (CTS5). There was a trend for fewer GATA3 mutations in cases in both VLR and METABRIC but no statistically significant differences in mutation frequency. Cell cycle and proliferation genes were strongly expressed in VLR cases. Immune-related genes and cell cycle inhibitors were highly expressed in controls. Neither of these changes were significant after correction for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathologic features are prognostic beyond 10 years. Conversely, molecular features, such as copy number alterations, TP53 mutations and intrinsic subtype which have early prognostic significance, have little prognostic value after 10 years.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor , Breast Neoplasms , Mutation , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Receptors, Estrogen , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/metabolism , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/genetics , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Receptors, Estrogen/metabolism , Receptors, Estrogen/genetics , Prognosis , Middle Aged , Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Adult , Aged , GATA3 Transcription Factor/genetics , GATA3 Transcription Factor/metabolism , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/genetics , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/metabolismABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Changes occur in the expression of oestrogen-regulated and proliferation-associated genes in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast tumours during the menstrual cycle. We investigated if Oncotype® DX recurrence score (RS), Prosigna® (ROR) and EndoPredict® (EP/EPclin) prognostic tests, which include some of these genes, vary according to the time in the menstrual cycle when they are measured. METHODS: Pairs of test scores were derived from 30 ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative tumours sampled at two different points of the menstrual cycle. Menstrual cycle windows were prospectively defined as either W1 (days 1-6 and 27-35; low oestrogen and low progesterone) or W2 (days 7-26; high oestrogen and high or low progesterone). RESULTS: The invasion module score of RS was lower (- 10.9%; p = 0.098), whereas the ER (+ 16.6%; p = 0.046) and proliferation (+ 7.3%; p = 0.13) module scores were higher in W2. PGR expression was significantly increased in W2 (+ 81.4%; p = 0.0029). Despite this, mean scores were not significantly different between W1 and W2 for any of the tests and the two measurements showed high correlation (r = 0.72-0.93). However, variability between the two measurements led to tumours being assigned to different risk categories in the following proportion of cases: RS 22.7%, ROR 27.3%, EP 13.6% and EPclin 13.6%. CONCLUSION: There are significant changes during the menstrual cycle in the expression of some of the genes and gene module scores comprising the RS, ROR and EP/EPclin scores. These did not affect any of the prognostic scores in a systematic fashion, but there was substantial variability in paired measurements.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Receptors, Estrogen , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Female , Humans , Menstrual Cycle/genetics , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/genetics , Prognosis , Receptors, Estrogen/geneticsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several thousand breast cancer patients develop resistance to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) each year in the UK. Rational treatment requires an improved molecular characterisation of resistant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mutational landscape of 198 regions in 16 key breast cancer genes and RNA expression of 209 genes covering key pathways was evaluated in paired biopsies before AI treatment and at progression on AI from 48 patients. Validity of findings was assessed in another five ESR1-mutated tumours progressing on AI. RESULTS: Eighty-nine mutations were identified in 41 matched pairs (PIK3CA in 27%; CDH1 in 20%). ESR1 (n = 5), ERBB2 (n = 1) and MAP2K4 (n = 1) had mutations in the secondary sample only. There was very high heterogeneity in gene expression between AI-resistant tumours with few patterns apparent. However, in the ESR1-mutated AI-resistant tumours, expression of four classical oestrogen-regulated genes (ERGs) was sevenfold higher than in ESR1 wild-type tumours, a finding confirmed in the second set of ESR1-mutated tumours. In ESR1 wild-type AI-resistant tumours ERG expression remained suppressed and was uncoupled from the recovery seen in proliferation. CONCLUSIONS: Major genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity exists between AI-resistant disease. ESR1 mutations appear to drive oestrogen-regulated processes in resistant tumours.
