Leyland‐Jones, Brian

Abstract Purpose: Little is known about the molecular signatures associated with specific metastatic sites in breast cancer. Using comprehensive multi-omic molecular profiling, we assessed whether alterations or activation of the PI3K–AKT–mTOR pathway is associated with specific sites of breast cancer metastasis. Experimental Design: Next-generation sequencing–based whole-exome sequencing was coupled with reverse-phase protein microarray (RPPA) functional signaling network analysis to explore the PI3K–AKT–mTOR axis in 32 pretreated breast cancer metastases. RPPA-based signaling data were further validated in an independent cohort of 154 metastatic lesions from breast cancer and 101 unmatched primary breast tumors. The proportion of cases with PI3K–AKT–mTOR genomic alterations or signaling network activation were compared between hepatic and nonhepatic lesions. Results: PIK3CA mutation and activation of AKT (S473) and p70S6K (T389) were detected more frequently among liver metastases than nonhepatic lesions (P < 0.01, P = 0.056, and P = 0.053, respectively). However, PIK3CA mutations alone were insufficient in predicting protein activation (P = 0.32 and P = 0.19 for activated AKT and p70S6K, respectively). RPPA analysis of an independent cohort of 154 tumors confirmed the relationship between pathway activation and hepatic metastasis [AKT (S473), mTOR (S2448), and 4EBP1 (S65); P < 0.01, P = 0.02, and P = 0.01, respectively]. Similar results were also seen between liver metastases and primary breast tumors [AKT (S473) P < 0.01, mTOR (S2448) P < 0.01, 4EBP1 (S65) P = 0.01]. This signature was lost when primary tumors were compared with all metastatic sites combined. Conclusions: Breast cancer patients with liver metastasis may represent a molecularly homogenized cohort with increased incidence of PIK3CA mutations and activation of the PI3K–AKT–mTOR signaling network. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4919–28. ©2017 AACR.

BACKGROUND Activating, nonamplification ERBB2 mutations ( ERBB2 mut) are not detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), but are detected by DNA sequencing and may predict clinical responses to human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)‐targeted therapy. The authors queried 5605 advanced/metastatic breast cancers (mBC) to uncover the frequency of ERBB2 mut genomic alterations. Clinical responses to anti‐HER2 therapeutics were identified. METHODS DNA was extracted from 40 µm of formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) sections. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was used to evaluate up to 315 genes (592× mean coverage depth). Results were analyzed for base substitutions, short indels, copy number changes, and selected rearrangements. RESULTS Of 5605 cases, 698 (12.5%) featured ERBB2 alterations, including 596 (10.6%) ERBB2 amplifications ( ERBB2 amp) and 138 (2.4%) ERBB2 mut; 38 cases (0.7%) had co‐occurring ERBB2amp and ERBB2mut. ERBB2mut predominantly affected the kinase (124 cases; 90%) or extracellular (15 cases; 11%) domains. Both primary BC (52 cases; 38%) and metastatic site biopsies (86 cases; 62%) were found to harbor ERBB2 mut, which were distributed across carcinoma not otherwise specified (NOS) (69 cases; 50%), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (40 cases; 29%), invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (27 cases; 20%), and mucinous mBC (2 cases; 1%). Genes commonly coaltered with ERBB2 were tumor protein 53 ( TP53 ) (49%); phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase catalytic subunit alpha ( PIK3CA ) (42%); cadherin 1, type 1 ( CDH1 ) (37%); MYC (17%); and cyclin D1 protein ( CCND1 ) (16%). CDH1 mutations were enriched in ERBB2 mut mBC ( P <0.0006) and associated with recurrent mBC. Selected patients with ERBB2 mut, without ERBB2 amp, who responded to anti‐HER2 targeted therapies are presented herein. CONCLUSIONS Within this large series, 1.8% of cases harbored ERBB2 mut, which are undetectable by standard‐of‐care IHC or FISH tests. Metastatic BC driven by ERBB2 mut respond to anti‐HER2 targeted therapies, and expanding clinical trials designed to detect ERBB2 mut by CGP and optimize targeted treatments are warranted. Cancer 2016 . © 2016 American Cancer Society . Cancer 2016;122:2654–2662. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

AbstractThe many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach. Clin Cancer Res; 21(13); 2911–5. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.