Mutation profile differences in younger and older patients with advanced breast cancer using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA).
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)
Geriatric oncology
Metastatic breast cancer
Next generation sequencing (NGS)
Journal
Breast cancer research and treatment
ISSN: 1573-7217
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res Treat
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8111104
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
28
07
2020
accepted:
13
11
2020
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
21
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Little is known regarding the mutation profiles of ctDNA in the older adult breast cancer population. The objective of this study is to assess differences in mutation profiles in the older adult breast cancer population using a ctDNA assay as well as assess utilization of testing results. Patients with advanced breast cancer underwent molecular profiling using a plasma-based ctDNA NGS assay (Guardant360) between 5/2015 and 10/2019 at Siteman Cancer Center. The profiling results of a multi-institutional database of patients with advanced breast cancer who had undergone molecular profiling were obtained. Associations between mutations and age group (≥ 65 vs. < 65) were examined using a Fisher's exact test. In the single-institutional cohort, 148 patients (69.2%) were < 65 years old and 66 patients (30.8%) ≥ 65 years old. ATM, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations were found more frequently in older patients with ER + HER2- breast cancers (p < 0.01). In the multi-institutional cohort, 5367 (61.1%) were < 65 years old and 3417 (38.9%) ≥ 65 years old. ATM, PIK3CA, and TP53 mutations were more common in the older cohort (p < 0.0001) and MYC and GATA3 mutations were less common in the older cohort (p < 0.0001). CtDNA testing influenced next-line treatment management in 40 (19.8%) patients in the single-institutional cohort. When controlling for subtype, results from a single institution were similar to the multi-institutional cohort showing that ATM and PIK3CA were more common in older adults. These data suggest there may be additional molecular differences in older adults with advanced breast cancers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33219484
doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-06019-0
pii: 10.1007/s10549-020-06019-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Circulating Tumor DNA
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
639-646Références
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figs (2019) Supplemental Data. [cited 2020 March 2]; Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2019-2020.pdf .
Horak P, Fröhling S, Glimm H (2016) Integrating next-generation sequencing into clinical oncology: strategies, promises and pitfalls. ESMO Open 1(5):e000094
doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2016-000094
André F et al (2019) Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 380(20):1929–1940
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904
Reinert T et al (2017) Clinical implications of ESR1 mutations in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Front Oncol 7:26–26
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00026
Allegretti M et al (2018) Tearing down the walls: FDA approves next generation sequencing (NGS) assays for actionable cancer genomic aberrations. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 37(1):47–47
doi: 10.1186/s13046-018-0702-x
Zehir A et al (2017) Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nat Med 23(6):703–713
doi: 10.1038/nm.4333
Tsimberidou A-M et al (2017) Initiative for molecular profiling and advanced cancer therapy (IMPACT): An MD Anderson Precision Medicine Study. JCO Precis Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00002
doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00002
pubmed: 29082359
pmcid: 5659750
Ries LAG, Einser MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg L, Mariotto A, Feuer EJ, Edwards BK (2005) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2002. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
Herrera AP et al (2010) Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change. Am J Public Health 100(Suppl 1):S105–S112
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.162982
Kelly CM, Power DG, Lichtman SM (2014) Targeted therapy in older patients with solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 32(24):2635–2646
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.4246
Clifton K et al (2019) Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities of palbociclib in a geriatric population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 175(3):667–674
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05181-4
Criscitiello C et al (2014) Biopsy confirmation of metastatic sites in breast cancer patients: clinical impact and future perspectives. Breast Cancer Res 16(2):205–205
doi: 10.1186/bcr3630
Wan JCM et al (2017) Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nat Rev Cancer 17(4):223–238
doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.7
Toor OM et al (2018) Correlation of somatic genomic alterations between tissue genomics and ctDNA employing next-generation sequencing: analysis of lung and gastrointestinal cancers. Mol Cancer Ther 17(5):1123–1132
doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-1015
Pereira AAL et al (2017) Clinical utility of circulating cell-free DNA in advanced colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183949
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183949
Tan AR et al (2017) Molecular profiling comparison of breast cancer subtypes in young women and older women. J Clin Oncol 35(15):11581–11581
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.11581
Gulbahce HE et al (2018) Differences in molecular features of triple-negative breast cancers based on the age at diagnosis. Cancer 124(24):4676–4684
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31776
Azim HA Jr et al (2015) Genomic aberrations in young and elderly breast cancer patients. BMC medicine 13:266–266
doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0504-3
Wang M-X et al (2018) Molecular features in young vs elderly breast cancer patients and the impacts on survival disparities by age at diagnosis. Cancer Med 7(7):3269–3277
doi: 10.1002/cam4.1544
Lanman RB et al (2015) Analytical and clinical validation of a digital sequencing panel for quantitative, highly accurate evaluation of cell-free circulating tumor DNA. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0140712
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140712
Odegaard JI et al (2018) Validation of a plasma-based comprehensive cancer genotyping assay utilizing orthogonal tissue- and plasma-based methodologies. Clin Cancer Res 24(15):3539–3549
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3831
Hu Y et al (2017) Discrimination of germline EGFR T790M mutations in plasma cell-free DNA allows study of prevalence across 31,414 cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 23(23):7351–7359
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1745
Zill OA et al (2018) The landscape of actionable genomic alterations in cell-free circulating tumor DNA from 21,807 advanced cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 24(15):3528–3538
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3837
Parkes A et al (2018) Characterization of bone only metastasis patients with respect to tumor subtypes. NPJ breast cancer 4:2–2
doi: 10.1038/s41523-018-0054-x
Moreno F et al (2019) Concordance of genomic variants in matched primary breast cancer, metastatic tumor, and circulating tumor DNA: The MIRROR Study. JCO Precis Oncol 3:1–16
Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP (2004) Participation in cancer clinical trialsRace-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291(22):2720–2726
doi: 10.1001/jama.291.22.2720
Sánchez NS et al (2019) Identification of actionable genomic alterations using circulating cell-free DNA. JCO Precis Oncol 3:1–10
Zardavas D et al (2018) Tumor PIK3CA genotype and prognosis in early-stage breast cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. J Clin Oncol 36(10):981–990
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.74.8301
Ahmad F et al (2016) Molecular evaluation of PIK3CA gene mutation in breast cancer: determination of frequency, distribution pattern and its association with clinicopathological findings in Indian patients. Med Oncol 33(7):74
doi: 10.1007/s12032-016-0788-y
Harlé A, Lion M, Lozano N, Husson M, Harter V, Genin P, Merlin J (2013) Analysis of PIK3CA exon 9 and 20 mutations in breast cancers using PCR-HRM and PCR-ARMS: Correlation with clinicopathological criteria. Oncol Rep 29:1043–1052
doi: 10.3892/or.2013.2229
Kalinsky K et al (2009) PIK3CA mutation associates with improved outcome in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15(16):5049–5059
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0632
Liedtke C et al (2008) PIK3CA-activating mutations and chemotherapy sensitivity in stage II–III breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 10(2):R27
doi: 10.1186/bcr1984
Lai Y-L et al (2008) PIK3CA Exon 20 mutation is independently associated with a poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 15(4):1064–1069
doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9751-7
Nair N et al (2016) Genomic analysis of uterine lavage fluid detects early endometrial cancers and reveals a prevalent landscape of driver mutations in women without histopathologic evidence of cancer: a prospective cross-sectional study. PLOS Medicine 13(12):e1002206
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002206
Hafner C et al (2007) Oncogenic <em>PIK3CA</em> mutations occur in epidermal nevi and seborrheic keratoses with a characteristic mutation pattern. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(33):13450
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705218104
Zink F et al (2017) Clonal hematopoiesis, with and without candidate driver mutations, is common in the elderly. Blood 130(6):742–752
doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-02-769869
Slavin TP et al (2019) Prevalence and characteristics of likely-somatic variants in cancer susceptibility genes among individuals who had hereditary pan-cancer panel testing. Cancer Genet 235–236:31–38
doi: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2019.04.005
Albanell J et al (2017) BRAF: An emerging target for triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(15):1099–1099
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.1099
Shah SP et al (2012) The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature 486(7403):395–399
doi: 10.1038/nature10933