Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: An Integrated Analysis of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling and PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Biomarkers in 312 Patients with Breast Cancer.
Biomarkers
Breast carcinoma
Comprehensive genomic profiling
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
17
05
2020
accepted:
04
08
2020
pubmed:
2
9
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
2
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We examined the current biomarker landscape in breast cancer when programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing is integrated with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). We analyzed data from samples of 312 consecutive patients with breast carcinoma tested with both CGP and PD-L1 (SP142) immunohistochemistry (IHC) during routine clinical care. These samples were stratified into hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor negative (HER2-; n = 159), HER2-positive (n = 32), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cohorts (n = 121). We found that in the TNBC cohort, 43% (52/121) were immunocyte PD-L1-positive, and in the HR+/HER2- cohort, 30% (48/159) had PIK3CA companion diagnostics mutations, and hence were potentially eligible for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel or alpelisib plus fulvestrant, respectively. Of the remaining 212 patients, 10.4% (22/212) had a BRCA1/2 mutation, which, if confirmed by germline testing, would allow olaparib plus talazoparib therapy. Of the remaining 190 patients, 169 (88.9%) were positive for another therapy-associated marker or a marker that would potentially qualify the patient for a clinical trial. In addition, we examined the relationship between immunocyte PD-L1 positivity and different tumor mutation burden (TMB) cutoffs and found that when a TMB cutoff of ≥9 mutations per Mb was applied (cutoff determined based on prior publication), 11.6% (14/121) patients were TMB ≥9 mutations/Mb and of these, TMB ≥9 mutations per Mb, 71.4% (10/14) were also positive for PD-L1 IHC. Our integrated PD-L1 and CGP methodology identified 32% of the tested patients as potentially eligible for at least one of the two new Food and Drug Administration approved therapies, atezolizumab or alpelisib, and an additional 61.2% (191/312) had other biomarker-guided potential therapeutic options. This integrated programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry and comprehensive genomic profiling methodology identified 32% of the tested patients as eligible for at least one of the two new Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, atezolizumab or alpelisib, and an additional 61.2% (191/312) had other biomarker-guided potential therapeutic options. These findings suggest new research opportunities to evaluate the predictive utility of other commonly seen PIK3CA mutations in hormone receptor-positive breast cancers and to standardize tumor mutation burden cutoffs to evaluate its potentially predictive role in triple-negative breast cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We examined the current biomarker landscape in breast cancer when programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing is integrated with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We analyzed data from samples of 312 consecutive patients with breast carcinoma tested with both CGP and PD-L1 (SP142) immunohistochemistry (IHC) during routine clinical care. These samples were stratified into hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor negative (HER2-; n = 159), HER2-positive (n = 32), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cohorts (n = 121).
RESULTS
We found that in the TNBC cohort, 43% (52/121) were immunocyte PD-L1-positive, and in the HR+/HER2- cohort, 30% (48/159) had PIK3CA companion diagnostics mutations, and hence were potentially eligible for atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel or alpelisib plus fulvestrant, respectively. Of the remaining 212 patients, 10.4% (22/212) had a BRCA1/2 mutation, which, if confirmed by germline testing, would allow olaparib plus talazoparib therapy. Of the remaining 190 patients, 169 (88.9%) were positive for another therapy-associated marker or a marker that would potentially qualify the patient for a clinical trial. In addition, we examined the relationship between immunocyte PD-L1 positivity and different tumor mutation burden (TMB) cutoffs and found that when a TMB cutoff of ≥9 mutations per Mb was applied (cutoff determined based on prior publication), 11.6% (14/121) patients were TMB ≥9 mutations/Mb and of these, TMB ≥9 mutations per Mb, 71.4% (10/14) were also positive for PD-L1 IHC.
CONCLUSION
Our integrated PD-L1 and CGP methodology identified 32% of the tested patients as potentially eligible for at least one of the two new Food and Drug Administration approved therapies, atezolizumab or alpelisib, and an additional 61.2% (191/312) had other biomarker-guided potential therapeutic options.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This integrated programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry and comprehensive genomic profiling methodology identified 32% of the tested patients as eligible for at least one of the two new Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies, atezolizumab or alpelisib, and an additional 61.2% (191/312) had other biomarker-guided potential therapeutic options. These findings suggest new research opportunities to evaluate the predictive utility of other commonly seen PIK3CA mutations in hormone receptor-positive breast cancers and to standardize tumor mutation burden cutoffs to evaluate its potentially predictive role in triple-negative breast cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32869930
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0449
pmc: PMC7648336
doi:
Substances chimiques
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
943-953Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2020.
Références
Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2012 Sep;4(3):171-173
pubmed: 22924091
Nature. 2012 Oct 4;490(7418):61-70
pubmed: 23000897
Int J Cancer. 2010 Jul 15;127(2):355-60
pubmed: 19904758
Onco Targets Ther. 2015 Nov 11;8:3323-8
pubmed: 26648736
Science. 2019 Nov 8;366(6466):714-723
pubmed: 31699932
Stat Med. 2014 May 20;33(11):1946-78
pubmed: 24399688
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):753-763
pubmed: 30110579
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(35):e4614
pubmed: 27583878
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Jan;113(1):75-82
pubmed: 18240019
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 May;98(18):e15449
pubmed: 31045815
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31
pubmed: 24142049
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 16;380(20):1929-1940
pubmed: 31091374
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2018 Apr 17;19(5):24
pubmed: 29666928
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 26;8(8):e72053
pubmed: 23991038
EMBO Mol Med. 2011 Mar;3(3):167-80
pubmed: 21337521
Genome Med. 2017 Apr 19;9(1):34
pubmed: 28420421
Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2015 Sep 27;9(Suppl 2):17-34
pubmed: 26462242
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 10;377(6):523-533
pubmed: 28578601
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Apr;75:284-298
pubmed: 28259011