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 ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |