No abstract

Biological changes that occur during metastatic progression of breast cancer are still incompletely characterized. In this study, we compared intrinsic molecular subtypes and gene expression in 123 paired primary and metastatic tissues from breast cancer patients. Intrinsic subtype was identified using a PAM50 classifier and χ2 tests determined the differences in variable distribution. The rate of subtype conversion was 0% in basal-like tumors, 23.1% in HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors, 30.0% in luminal B tumors, and 55.3% in luminal A tumors. In 40.2% of cases, luminal A tumors converted to luminal B tumors, whereas in 14.3% of cases luminal A and B tumors converted to HER2-E tumors. We identified 47 genes that were expressed differentially in metastatic versus primary disease. Metastatic tumors were enriched for proliferation-related and migration-related genes and diminished for luminal-related genes. Expression of proliferation-related genes were better at predicting overall survival in metastatic disease (OSmet) when analyzed in metastatic tissue rather than primary tissue. In contrast, a basal-like gene expression signature was better at predicting OSmet in primary disease compared with metastatic tissue. We observed correlations between time to tumor relapse and the magnitude of changes of proliferation, luminal B, or HER2-E signatures in metastatic versus primary disease. Although the intrinsic subtype was largely maintained during metastatic progression, luminal/HER2-negative tumors acquired a luminal B or HER2-E profile during metastatic progression, likely reflecting tumor evolution or acquisition of estrogen independence. Overall, our analysis revealed the value of stratifying gene expression by both cancer subtype and tissue type, providing clinicians more refined tools to evaluate prognosis and treatment.

The objective of this study was to determine the conversion rate of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) between primary tumors and metastatic lesions in advanced breast cancer. Patients with suspected diagnosis of locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, either at first relapse or after successive disease progressions, who had an appropriately preserved sample from a primary tumor and were scheduled for a biopsy of the recurrent lesion, were included. Blinded determinations of receptor status on paired samples were performed by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization at a central laboratory and compared with those performed locally. Overall, 196 patients were included and 184 patients were considered evaluable. Reasons for non-evaluability included the inability to perform biopsy (n = 4) or biopsy results showing normal tissue (n = 3), benign disease (n = 3) or a second neoplasia (n = 2). Conversion rates determined at local level were higher than those determined centrally (HER2: 16 vs. 3 %, ER: 21 vs. 13 %, PR: 35 vs. 28 %, respectively). There was substantial agreement regarding the expression of HER2 in primary tumors and metastases, and ER at metastases, between local and central laboratories. PR at any site and ER at primary site showed moderate agreement. Oncologists altered their treatment plans in 31 % of patients whose tumor subtype had changed. These results reinforce the recommendation for performing confirmatory biopsies of metastases, not only to avoid misdiagnosis of breast cancer relapse, but also to optimize treatment (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01377363).

Metastatic breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease that presents in varying forms, and a growing number of therapeutic options makes it difficult to determine the best choice in each particular situation. When selecting a systemic treatment, it is important to consider the medication administered in the previous stages, such as acquired resistance, type of progression, time to relapse, tumor aggressiveness, age, comorbidities, pre-and post-menopausal status, and patient preferences. Moreover, tumor genomic signatures can identify different subtypes, which can be used to create patient profiles and design specific therapies. However, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment sequence for each subgroup of patients. During the SABCC Congress of 2014, specialized breast cancer oncologists from referral hospitals in Europe met to define patient profiles and to determine specific treatment sequences for each one. Conclusions were then debated in a final meeting in which a relative degree of consensus for each treatment sequence was established. Four patient profiles were defined according to established breast cancer phenotypes: pre-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, post-menopausal patients with luminal subtype, patients with triple-negative subtype, and patients with HER2-positive subtype. A treatment sequence was then defined, consisting of hormonal therapy with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant, and mTOR inhibitors for pre-and post-menopausal patients; a chemotherapy sequence for the first, second, and further lines for luminal and triple-negative patients; and an optimal sequence for treatment with new antiHER2 therapies. Finally, a document detailing all treatment sequences, that had the agreement of all the oncologists, was drawn up as a guideline and advocacy tool for professionals treating patients with this disease.