Cargando…

Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes

PURPOSE: A 3-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is a key component of a currently FDA-approved companion diagnostic assay to identify HRD in patients with ovarian cancer using a threshold score of ≥ 42, though recent studies have explored the utility of a lower threshold (GIS ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lenz, Lauren, Neff, Chris, Solimeno, Cara, Cogan, Elizabeth S., Abramson, Vandana G., Boughey, Judy C., Falkson, Carla, Goetz, Matthew P., Ford, James M., Gradishar, William J., Jankowitz, Rachel C., Kaklamani, Virginia G., Marcom, P. Kelly, Richardson, Andrea L., Storniolo, Anna Maria, Tung, Nadine M., Vinayak, Shaveta, Hodgson, Darren R., Lai, Zhongwu, Dearden, Simon, Hennessy, Bryan T., Mayer, Erica L., Mills, Gordon B., Slavin, Thomas P., Gutin, Alexander, Connolly, Roisin M., Telli, Melinda L., Stearns, Vered, Lanchbury, Jerry S., Timms, Kirsten M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37589839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07046-3
_version_ 1785106714505248768
author Lenz, Lauren
Neff, Chris
Solimeno, Cara
Cogan, Elizabeth S.
Abramson, Vandana G.
Boughey, Judy C.
Falkson, Carla
Goetz, Matthew P.
Ford, James M.
Gradishar, William J.
Jankowitz, Rachel C.
Kaklamani, Virginia G.
Marcom, P. Kelly
Richardson, Andrea L.
Storniolo, Anna Maria
Tung, Nadine M.
Vinayak, Shaveta
Hodgson, Darren R.
Lai, Zhongwu
Dearden, Simon
Hennessy, Bryan T.
Mayer, Erica L.
Mills, Gordon B.
Slavin, Thomas P.
Gutin, Alexander
Connolly, Roisin M.
Telli, Melinda L.
Stearns, Vered
Lanchbury, Jerry S.
Timms, Kirsten M.
author_facet Lenz, Lauren
Neff, Chris
Solimeno, Cara
Cogan, Elizabeth S.
Abramson, Vandana G.
Boughey, Judy C.
Falkson, Carla
Goetz, Matthew P.
Ford, James M.
Gradishar, William J.
Jankowitz, Rachel C.
Kaklamani, Virginia G.
Marcom, P. Kelly
Richardson, Andrea L.
Storniolo, Anna Maria
Tung, Nadine M.
Vinayak, Shaveta
Hodgson, Darren R.
Lai, Zhongwu
Dearden, Simon
Hennessy, Bryan T.
Mayer, Erica L.
Mills, Gordon B.
Slavin, Thomas P.
Gutin, Alexander
Connolly, Roisin M.
Telli, Melinda L.
Stearns, Vered
Lanchbury, Jerry S.
Timms, Kirsten M.
author_sort Lenz, Lauren
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: A 3-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is a key component of a currently FDA-approved companion diagnostic assay to identify HRD in patients with ovarian cancer using a threshold score of ≥ 42, though recent studies have explored the utility of a lower threshold (GIS ≥ 33). The present study evaluated whether the ovarian cancer thresholds may also be appropriate for major breast cancer subtypes by comparing the genomic instability score (GIS) distributions of BRCA1/2-deficient estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer (ER + BC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ovarian cancer and breast cancer (ER + BC and TNBC) tumors from ten study cohorts were sequenced to identify pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, and GIS was calculated using a previously described algorithm. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to platinum therapy was evaluated in a subset of TNBC samples. For TNBC, a threshold was set and threshold validity was assessed relative to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 560 ovarian cancer, 805 ER + BC, and 443 TNBC tumors were included. Compared to ovarian cancer, the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient samples was shifted lower for ER + BC (p = 0.015), but not TNBC (p = 0.35). In the subset of TNBC samples, univariable logistic regression models revealed that GIS status using thresholds of ≥ 42 and ≥ 33 were significant predictors of response to platinum therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the GIS thresholds used for ovarian cancer may also be appropriate for TNBC, but not ER + BC. GIS thresholds in TNBC were validated using clinical response data to platinum therapy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-023-07046-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10504389
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105043892023-09-17 Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes Lenz, Lauren Neff, Chris Solimeno, Cara Cogan, Elizabeth S. Abramson, Vandana G. Boughey, Judy C. Falkson, Carla Goetz, Matthew P. Ford, James M. Gradishar, William J. Jankowitz, Rachel C. Kaklamani, Virginia G. Marcom, P. Kelly Richardson, Andrea L. Storniolo, Anna Maria Tung, Nadine M. Vinayak, Shaveta Hodgson, Darren R. Lai, Zhongwu Dearden, Simon Hennessy, Bryan T. Mayer, Erica L. Mills, Gordon B. Slavin, Thomas P. Gutin, Alexander Connolly, Roisin M. Telli, Melinda L. Stearns, Vered Lanchbury, Jerry S. Timms, Kirsten M. Breast Cancer Res Treat Original Laboratory Investigation PURPOSE: A 3-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score is a key component of a currently FDA-approved companion diagnostic assay to identify HRD in patients with ovarian cancer using a threshold score of ≥ 42, though recent studies have explored the utility of a lower threshold (GIS ≥ 33). The present study evaluated whether the ovarian cancer thresholds may also be appropriate for major breast cancer subtypes by comparing the genomic instability score (GIS) distributions of BRCA1/2-deficient estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer (ER + BC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient ovarian cancer. METHODS: Ovarian cancer and breast cancer (ER + BC and TNBC) tumors from ten study cohorts were sequenced to identify pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, and GIS was calculated using a previously described algorithm. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to platinum therapy was evaluated in a subset of TNBC samples. For TNBC, a threshold was set and threshold validity was assessed relative to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 560 ovarian cancer, 805 ER + BC, and 443 TNBC tumors were included. Compared to ovarian cancer, the GIS distribution of BRCA1/2-deficient samples was shifted lower for ER + BC (p = 0.015), but not TNBC (p = 0.35). In the subset of TNBC samples, univariable logistic regression models revealed that GIS status using thresholds of ≥ 42 and ≥ 33 were significant predictors of response to platinum therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the GIS thresholds used for ovarian cancer may also be appropriate for TNBC, but not ER + BC. GIS thresholds in TNBC were validated using clinical response data to platinum therapy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-023-07046-3. Springer US 2023-08-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10504389/ /pubmed/37589839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07046-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Laboratory Investigation
Lenz, Lauren
Neff, Chris
Solimeno, Cara
Cogan, Elizabeth S.
Abramson, Vandana G.
Boughey, Judy C.
Falkson, Carla
Goetz, Matthew P.
Ford, James M.
Gradishar, William J.
Jankowitz, Rachel C.
Kaklamani, Virginia G.
Marcom, P. Kelly
Richardson, Andrea L.
Storniolo, Anna Maria
Tung, Nadine M.
Vinayak, Shaveta
Hodgson, Darren R.
Lai, Zhongwu
Dearden, Simon
Hennessy, Bryan T.
Mayer, Erica L.
Mills, Gordon B.
Slavin, Thomas P.
Gutin, Alexander
Connolly, Roisin M.
Telli, Melinda L.
Stearns, Vered
Lanchbury, Jerry S.
Timms, Kirsten M.
Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title_full Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title_fullStr Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title_full_unstemmed Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title_short Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
title_sort identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: genomic instability score distributions differ among breast cancer subtypes
topic Original Laboratory Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37589839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07046-3
work_keys_str_mv AT lenzlauren identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT neffchris identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT solimenocara identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT coganelizabeths identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT abramsonvandanag identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT bougheyjudyc identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT falksoncarla identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT goetzmatthewp identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT fordjamesm identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT gradisharwilliamj identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT jankowitzrachelc identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT kaklamanivirginiag identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT marcompkelly identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT richardsonandreal identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT stornioloannamaria identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT tungnadinem identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT vinayakshaveta identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT hodgsondarrenr identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT laizhongwu identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT deardensimon identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT hennessybryant identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT mayererical identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT millsgordonb identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT slavinthomasp identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT gutinalexander identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT connollyroisinm identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT tellimelindal identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT stearnsvered identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT lanchburyjerrys identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes
AT timmskirstenm identifyinghomologousrecombinationdeficiencyinbreastcancergenomicinstabilityscoredistributionsdifferamongbreastcancersubtypes