Brown, Myles

Gene fusions involving tumor protein p63 gene (TP63) occur in multiple T and B cell lymphomas and portend a dismal prognosis for patients. The function and mechanisms of TP63 fusions remain unclear, and there is no target therapy for patients with lymphoma harboring TP63 fusions. Here, we show that TP63 fusions act as bona fide oncogenes and are essential for fusion-positive lymphomas. Transgenic mice expressing TBL1XR1::TP63, the most common TP63 fusion, develop diverse lymphomas that recapitulate multiple human T and B cell lymphomas. Here, we identify that TP63 fusions coordinate the recruitment of two epigenetic modifying complexes, the nuclear receptor corepressor (NCoR)—histone deacetylase 3 (HDAC3) by the N-terminal TP63 fusion partner and the lysine methyltransferase 2D (KMT2D) by the C-terminal TP63 component, which are both required for fusion-dependent survival. TBL1XR1::TP63 localization at enhancers drives a unique cell state that involves up-regulation of MYC and the polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC2) components EED and EZH2. Inhibiting EZH2 with the therapeutic agent valemetostat is highly effective at treating transgenic lymphoma murine models, xenografts, and patient-derived xenografts harboring TP63 fusions. One patient with TP63 -rearranged lymphoma showed a rapid response to valemetostat treatment. In summary, TP63 fusions link partner components that, together, coordinate multiple epigenetic complexes, resulting in therapeutic vulnerability to EZH2 inhibition.

Abstract Recurrent chromosomal rearrangements are a hallmark of hematologic malignancies and play critical roles in pathogenesis. The TP53 analog TP63 is rearranged in 5-10% of diverse subtypes of both aggressive T- and B-cell lymphomas. Patients with TP63-rearranged lymphomas have dismal outcomes, with 5-year overall survival rates between 0-17%, depending on cohorts. The function and mechanisms of TP63 rearrangements and TP63 fusion proteins in tumorigenesis are poorly understood. As a result, attempts to treat these patients to date have been largely empiric. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand how TP63 fusions contribute to tumorigenesis and to translate the findings into novel therapeutic options for these patients. Here, we demonstrated that TP63 fusions are essential for the propagation of T-cell lymphomas (TCLs). Knockdown of TP63 fusions with specific shRNAs in TCL cell lines harboring TP63 fusions suppressed both cell growth in vitro and tumor growth in vivo. Retroviral expression of TBL1XR1-TP63, the most common TP63 fusion, conferred cytokine independence in Ba/F3 cells, consistent with its role as an oncogene. To investigate the role of TP63 fusions in T- and B-cell lymphomagenesis, we engineered a CAG-Loxp-Stop-Loxp-TBL1XR1-TP63 conditional knock-in mouse model and crossed with hCD2-Cre mice. This results in expression beginning during early lymphoid development. As observed in patients, transgenic mice developed multiple subtypes of both T- and B-cell lymphoma. To define the effects and mechanisms of TP63 fusions within T cells, we performed CRISPR scanning, transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic analyses. Our data showed that domains within both the N-terminal TBL1XR1 and C-terminal TP63 portions contribute to the function of this fusion. We found that the N-terminal component of TP63 fusions interacts with components of the NCOR/SMRT complex. At the same time, the C-terminal portion of TP63 (which recapitulates the deltaN-p63 isoform expressed in some carcinomas) interacts with the enhancer modifier KMT2D and its complex members. TBL1XR1-TP63 binds to a novel distal enhancer to drive MYC expression, and thus upregulates the expression of the histone H3K27 methylase EZH2. Finally, we assessed whether EZH2 is a vulnerability of TP63-rearranged lymphomas. We found that knockdown of EZH2 in TP63-rearranged lines significantly impaired cell growth, as did treatment with the EZH2 and 1 dual inhibitor valemetostat. Valemetostat, which is now being tested in patients with lymphoma, counteracted the oncogenic effects of TP63 fusions in multiple preclinical models in vivo. Together, our results identify the TP63 fusion as a highly unique oncogenic driver in lymphomagenesis capable of recruiting multiple epigenetic modifier complexes and inducing a targetable dependence on EZH2. Citation Format: Gongwei Wu, Noriaki Yoshida, Jihe Liu, Xiaoyang Zhang, Yuan Xiong, Tayla Heavican-Foral, Huiyun Liu, Geoffrey Nelson, Lu Yang, Renee Chen, Katherine Donovan, Marcus Jones, Mikhail Roshal, Yanming Zhang, Ran Xu, Ajit Nirmal, Salvia Jain, Catharine Leahy, Kristen Jones, Kristen Stevenson, Natasha Galasso, Nivetha Ganesan, Tiffany Chang, Wen-Chao Wu, Abner Louissaint, Lydie Debaize, Hojong Yoon, Paola Dal Cin, Wing Chan Chan, Shannan Ho Sui Ho Sui, Samuel Ng, Andrew Feldman, Steven M. Horwitz, Mathew Meyerson, Karen Adelman, Eric Fischer, Chun-Wei Chen, David Weinstock, Myles Brown. TP63 fusions drive enhancer rewiring, lymphomagenesis, and dependence on EZH2. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5755.

Abstract Purpose: Current clinical parameters do not stratify indolent from aggressive prostate cancer. Aggressive prostate cancer, defined by the progression from localized disease to metastasis, is responsible for the majority of prostate cancer–associated mortality. Recent gene expression profiling has proven successful in predicting the outcome of prostate cancer patients; however, they have yet to provide targeted therapy approaches that could inhibit a patient's progression to metastatic disease. Experimental Design: We have interrogated a total of seven primary prostate cancer cohorts (n = 1,900), two metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer datasets (n = 293), and one prospective cohort (n = 1,385) to assess the impact of TOP2A and EZH2 expression on prostate cancer cellular program and patient outcomes. We also performed IHC staining for TOP2A and EZH2 in a cohort of primary prostate cancer patients (n = 89) with known outcome. Finally, we explored the therapeutic potential of a combination therapy targeting both TOP2A and EZH2 using novel prostate cancer–derived murine cell lines. Results: We demonstrate by genome-wide analysis of independent primary and metastatic prostate cancer datasets that concurrent TOP2A and EZH2 mRNA and protein upregulation selected for a subgroup of primary and metastatic patients with more aggressive disease and notable overlap of genes involved in mitotic regulation. Importantly, TOP2A and EZH2 in prostate cancer cells act as key driving oncogenes, a fact highlighted by sensitivity to combination-targeted therapy. Conclusions: Overall, our data support further assessment of TOP2A and EZH2 as biomarkers for early identification of patients with increased metastatic potential that may benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant targeted therapy approaches. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 7072–83. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract The nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) path-way has been implicated in tumor B-cell survival, growth, and resistance to therapy. Because tumor cells overcome single-agent antitumor activity, we hypothesized that combination of agents that target differentially NF-κB pathway will induce significant cytotoxicity. Therapeutic agents that target proteasome and Akt pathways should induce significant activity in B-cell malignancies as both pathways impact NF-κB activity. We demonstrated that perifosine and bortezomib both targeted NF-κB through its recruitment to the promoter of its target gene IκB using chromatin immunoprecipitation assay. This combination led to synergistic cytotoxicity in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) cells that was mediated through a combined reduction of the PI3K/Akt and ERK signaling pathways, found to be critical for survival of WM cells. Moreover, a combination of these drugs with the CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab further increased their cytotoxic activity. Thus, effective WM therapy may require combination regimens targeting the NF-κB pathway.

AbstractResults from multiple clinical trials involving aromatase inhibitors have added to the knowledge base relating to endocrine therapy of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer. In the extended adjuvant setting, data from the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 6a trial showed an advantage for anastrozole following 5 years of tamoxifen treatment, consistent with the more robust MA.17 trial that examined letrozole versus placebo following 5 years of tamoxifen treatment. The combined analysis of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 8 trial and the German Arimidex Nolvadex 95 trial, plus the Italian Tamoxifen Anastrozole trial, have shown the advantage of switching to anastrozole over continuing the tamoxifen to complete the full 5 years of adjuvant therapy. These trials support the previously reported larger and double-blind Intergroup Exemestane Study. The Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial now has data out to 68 months of median follow-up showing the maintenance of a significant advantage of anastrozole over tamoxifen for disease-free survival. In this initial treatment setting, the Breast International Group 1-98 trial recently showed a significant advantage for letrozole over tamoxifen. The current debate is centered on whether the optimal strategy is to give an aromatase inhibitor initially or after several years of tamoxifen treatment. Multiple important questions remain, including the predictive value of molecular markers such as progesterone receptor, the optimal duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy, the long-term adverse effects, and the relative efficacy and toxicity of the different aromatase inhibitors.