Jahanzeb, Mohammad

406 Background: Anxiety is highly prevalent among oncology patients, often arising from uncertainty around diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis. Elevated anxiety can impair decision-making, reduce treatment adherence, and diminish overall quality of life. Effective second opinion consultations may help mitigate anxiety and increase patients’ confidence in recommending healthcare services to others. Our study evaluates the impact of oncology second opinion (OSO) consultations on anxiety level (AL) and confidence in the organization (CIO) providing the second opinion, i.e., Cincinnati Cancer Advisors (CCA) and Naples Cancer Advisors (NCA). Methods: The study included patients with cancer diagnoses, age ≥18 years, who were served in person for OSO at CCA and NCA. A survey was used before and after consultation, measuring AL (scale 1- 10) and CIO level (scale 1 - 10), assessed by asking patients how likely they would refer loved ones to the organization. After the content and face validation, patients completed the survey anonymously, put it in a sealed envelope, and dropped it in a dedicated box. Data was analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the change from pre- to post-consultation scores. Spearman’s correlation test was used to assess the relation between the changes in AL and CIO. Statistical significance was assessed using an alpha-level of 0.05. Analyses were conducted via R and R Studio (version 2025.5.1.513). Results: Overall, 46 consecutive patients participated (45 completed AL pre and post visit survey and 43 completed the CIO pre and post visit survey). The mean pre-consultation anxiety score was 5.92 (SD = 2.58), and the post-consultation score was 3.87 (SD = 2.10), demonstrating a significant reduction (mean paired difference = -2.05; p < 0.0001). The mean pre-consult CIO was 8.21 (SD = 2.03), increasing to 9.73 post-consultation (SD = 0.53), indicating a significant improvement (mean paired difference = 1.66; p < 0.0001). The correlation between changes in AL and CIO was not statistically significant, which may be attributed to the high baseline CIO scores (ceiling effect) and the small sample size. Conclusions: Oncology second opinion was associated with a marked decrease in patient AL and a significant increase in CIO. The patient survey will continue to recruit additional participants to increase the sample size and explore the correlation between changes in AL and CIO. Studying the downstream impact on patient experience and outcome is warranted.

Abstract Background: While genomic alterations are central players in tumor progression, proteins are the targets for precision therapy. The degree by which “actionable” genomic alterations translate into activated/altered proteins and pathway is still under investigation. Using a multi-OMIC approach from the SideOut 2 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) trial, this study explored the concordance between selected “actionable” genomic alterations and protein expression/activation. Methods: Snap frozen biopsies from 29 MBC patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial were used for this analysis. Exome WES and RNASeq data was processed using an in-house developed pipeline and identified amplification of CCND1 (6/29), FGFR1 (4/29), and FGF 3, 4, 5, and 19 (4/29) as some of most frequent “actionable” genomic alterations in our MBC cohort. Signaling analysis of the 29 cases was performed using Reverse Phase Protein Microarray coupled with Laser Capture Microdissection. Protein expression/phosphorylation was measured in a continuous scale and classified based on quartile distribution. Concordance between CCND1 amplification and Cyclin D1 expression, along with the activation of FOXM1 T600 and Rb S780, was explored. Amplification of the FGFR1 locus or its ligands was correlated with the level of activation/phosphorylation of FGFR1 Y653/654. Results: While Cyclin D1 protein expression was greater than the population mean for 4/6 (67%) patients with CCND1 amplification, only 2/6 (33%) patients with CCND1 amplification had Cyclin D1 level within the top quartile of the population (n=29). FOXM1 T600 activation was independent from CCND1 amplification, with high levels of FOXM1 T600 predominantly in the CCND1 wild-type population. Only 1/6 (17%) patients with CCND1 amplification had FOXM1 T600 level similar to the top quartile of the population while a second patient was above the population median. Activation of Rb S780 was above the population median, but below the top quartile, in 2/6 (33%) CCND1 amplified patients. Similarly, none of the patients with activation of FGFR Y653/654 equal to the top quartile harbored an FGFR1 amplification. Only 1/4 (25%) patients carrying an FGFR1 amplification had an activation of FGFR Y653/654 above the population median. Similarly, 1/4 (25%) patients with FGF ligand amplification showed FGFR Y653/654 level within the top quartile while three patients had FGFR Y653/654 activation below the population median. No significant results were found between proteomic (below/above the median) and genomic characteristics by Fisher test (p&gt;0.05). Conclusion: Molecular genotyping of “actionable” cancer targets alone may be insufficient in predicting whether the actual drug target protein is expressed and/or activated in any given patient's tumor. Although these results need further validation, the combination of genomic and proteomic data may represent a more informative approach for identifying real molecular drivers of individual lesions as well as “actionable” protein/phosphoprotein targets in the absence of genomic events. Multi-OMIC approaches may lead to more effective stratification in precision medicine trials. Citation Format: Pierobon M, Wong S, Reeded A, Anthony S, Robert N, Northfelt DW, Jahanzeb M, Vocila L, Wulfkuhle J, Dunetz B, Aldrich J, Byron S, Craig D, Liotta L, Carpten J, Petricoin EF. A multi-OMIC analysis to explore the impact of “actionable” genomic alterations on protein pathway activation: Clinical implication for precision medicine in metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-09.

Abstract Background: The identification of organ-specific targetable signatures may help design more effective treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We took a multi-OMIC approach to assess whether the AKT-mTOR pathway is globally activated during metastatic progression or whether it represents an organ-specific target. Methods: Snap frozen biopsies from 25 MBC patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial were used. Sites of metastasis were classified as liver (n=8) and others (n=17), the latter including cutaneous, lung, lymph nodes, and intra-abdominal lesions. Signaling analysis of the 25 cases was performed using Reverse Phase Protein Microarray (RPPA) coupled with Laser Capture Microdissection. Activation of the AKT-mTOR pathway was quantified as phosphorylation of AKT (S473) and the mTOR target p70S6 (T389). Matched exome (WES) and RNASeq data were available for 17 of 25 patients, five with liver metastases. Sequencing data was processed using an in-house developed pipeline to identify somatic events including coding mutations, copy number alterations, gene fusions, and differential expression. Activation of the AKT-mTOR pathway and sequencing data were compared between hepatic and non-hepatic lesions using an integrated RPPA and genomic approach. Results: Among liver metastases, AKT was activated in 4 of the 8 (50.0%) patients, while 6 of the 8 cases (75.0%) showed activation of p70S6. Sequencing data revealed mutation of PIK3CA in 4 of the 5 liver metastases (80.0%). Three of the PIK3CA mutated specimens with catalytic domain mutations (codons 1023 and 147) demonstrated co-activation of AKT and p70S6, while the fourth case, containing a helical domain mutation (E542K), had activation of p70S6 only. The PIK3CA wild-type liver metastasis demonstrated low activation of AKT and p70S6. For non-hepatic metastases AKT was activated in 2 of the 17 cases (11.8%) and p70S6 in 5 of the 17 patients (29.4%). Discussion: Although these results need further validation, activation of the AKT-mTOR pathway appears to be a hepatic specific signature in MBC and could be used for the selection of targeted agents for hepatic lesions. Citation Format: Pierobon M, Wong S, Reeder A, Anthony SP, Robert NJ, Northfelt DW, Jahanzeb M, Vocila L, Wulfkuhle J, Dunetz B, Aldrich J, Byron S, Craig D, Liotta L, Petricoin EF, Carpten J. The AKT-mTOR pathway as a potential organ-specific drug target signature of hepatic metastases from breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-05-21.

Abstract Background: The development of distant metastases is the strongest prognostic factor associated with cancer mortality. Customization of treatment based on molecular profiling of a patient’s primary tumor has yielded promising results and has opened a new paradigm for treating patients with advanced disease. Nevertheless profiling the primary tumor may not reflect the actionable molecular drivers of the metastatic lesions. In the last few years a large number of genomic and proteomic studies have demonstrated that at the molecular level metastatic lesions significantly differ from matched primary tumors. The impact of metastasis site organ microenvironments on breast cancer primary tumors has been only partially explored. Since most targeted therapies work by modulating aberrantly-activated protein kinase signaling, the aim of this study was to utilize reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA) to explore whether metastatic lesions derived from different patients, but invading the same host target organ showed similarities in their signaling architecture and presented with organ-specific targetable signatures. Methods: Snap frozen material collected from 14 metastatic breast cancer patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial ("Side Out II") were used for this analysis. Sites of metastasis were: liver (n=7), skin/chest wall (n=4), and lung (n=3). All samples were subjected to Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM) and RPPA to measure the activation/phosphorylation levels of 12 FDA approved drug targets and linked substrates. Results: Among the 7 patients with liver metastases, p70S6K, c-Abl, ERK 1/2 were highly phosphorylated in 5 cases (71.4%), ErbB2/HER2 in 4 cases (57.1%), and AKT in 3 cases (42.8%). On the contrary, of the 4 patients with skin/chest wall lesions 3 showed high activation of ErbB2/HER2, ErbB3/HER3, and ERK 1/2 (75.0%) and 2 of EGFR (50.0%). Of note, none of the skin/chest wall lesions showed activation of AKT and only 1 case presented with activated p70S6K (25.0%). Lung metastasis showed an overall low activation of all 12 analytes measured. Discussion: Although this data is based on a relatively small number of samples and needs further validation, our initial analysis revealed potentially important trends that could have an impact in the prioritization and selection of targeted agents for metastatic breast cancer trials. We found that the distribution of the 12 FDA approved drug targets and downstream substrates varies between different metastatic sites. Thus, the emergent hypothesis from this work is that breast cancer patients with liver metastases may be more susceptible to AKT-mTOR directed targeted therapeutics and patients with skin/chest wall metastasis may benefit from therapies that target EGFR and/or downstream ERK signaling. Citation Format: Mariaelena Pierobon, Stephen P Anthony, K Alex Reeder, Nicholas J Robert, Donald W Northfelt, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Linda Vocila, Julia D Wulfkuhle, Bryant Dunetz, Lance A Liotta, Emanuel F Petricoin. Pathway activation mapping of metastatic breast cancer identifies potential organ-specific signatures: Implications for patient stratification to targeted treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-23.