Margenthaler, Julie

Abstract Background: Estrogen receptors are over-expressed in around 70% of breast cancer cases. The genetic changes that occur during aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment are not well understood and may differ depending upon the patient's response phenotype. Methods: We performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) of matched blood, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples from 22 estrogen receptor positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. For 5 cases, we performed the whole genome sequencing (WGS) on patients’ matched normal, two pre AI-treatment, and two post AI-treatment DNA isolates from biopsy samples. We validated all putative coding and non-coding somatic mutations using deep sequencing. By comparing the validated somatic mutations from pre- and post- AI treatment biopsy samples, we were able to determine the alterations in the tumor genomes. In every case we defined the clonal architecture of each pair of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples by comparing the variant allele frequencies from thousands of validated somatic mutations. Results: Comparisons of the two pre AI-treatment biopsy samples from the same patient indicates that the variant allele frequencies of mutations showed high concordances in all 5 cases, 0.74 to 0.95 range of correlation coefficient. Only a small percentage of somatic mutations were detected in one pre-treatment sample and not the other (4.65% overall). In comparing the somatic variations between pre-treatment and matched post-treatment biopsy samples in 22 cases, we found that patients with good clinical response to AI treatment retained known driver mutations only in their pre-treatment tumors. Conversely, those patients with poor clinical response presented new driver mutations in their post-treatment samples. Furthermore, the variant allele frequency for most mutated genes decreased in post AI treatment samples for patients with good AI treatment response; on the contrary, the variant allele frequency increased for patients with poor clinical response. Conclusions: From WGS of matched normal, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples, we identified new driver genes mutated in patients with poor clinical response, while patients with good clinical response had lost mutated driver genes in their post-treatment biopsy samples. The genetic landscape revealed by WGS of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples reveals mutational repertoires are remodeled by AI therapy. This finding suggests deep sequencing of AI treated samples will be necessary to reveal the complete complement of mutations present in a patient's tumor. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-423. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-423

Purpose Preoperative aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment promotes breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for estrogen receptor (ER) –positive breast cancer. To study this treatment option, responses to three AIs were compared in a randomized phase II neoadjuvant trial designed to select agents for phase III investigations. Patients and Methods Three hundred seventy-seven postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III ER-positive (Allred score 6-8) breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included BCS, Ki67 proliferation marker changes, the Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI), and PAM50-based intrinsic subtype analysis. Results On the basis of clinical response rates, letrozole and anastrozole were selected for further investigation; however, no other differences in surgical outcome, PEPI score, or Ki67 suppression were detected. The BCS rate for mastectomy-only patients at presentation was 51%. PAM50 analysis identified AI-unresponsive nonluminal subtypes (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 enriched or basal-like) in 3.3% of patients. Clinical response and surgical outcomes were similar in luminal A (LumA) versus luminal B tumors; however, a PEPI of 0 (best prognostic group) was highest in the LumA subset (27.1% v 10.7%; P = .004). Conclusion Neoadjuvant AI treatment markedly improved surgical outcomes. Ki67 and PEPI data demonstrated that the three agents tested are biologically equivalent and therefore likely to have similar adjuvant activities. LumA tumors were more likely to have favorable biomarker characteristics after treatment; however, occasional paradoxical increases in Ki67 (12% of tumors with > 5% increase after therapy) suggest treatment-resistant cells, present in some LumA tumors, can be detected by post-treatment profiling.