Search

Purpose: We undertook this study to determine the prevalence of estrogen receptor (ER) α (ESR1) mutations throughout the natural history of hormone-dependent breast cancer and to delineate the functional roles of the most commonly detected alterations.Experimental Design: We studied a total of 249 tumor specimens from 208 patients. The specimens include 134 ER-positive (ER+/HER2−) and, as controls, 115 ER-negative (ER−) tumors. The ER+ samples consist of 58 primary breast cancers and 76 metastatic samples. All tumors were sequenced to high unique coverage using next-generation sequencing targeting the coding sequence of the estrogen receptor and an additional 182 cancer-related genes.Results: Recurring somatic mutations in codons 537 and 538 within the ligand-binding domain of ER were detected in ER+ metastatic disease. Overall, the frequency of these mutations was 12% [9/76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6%–21%] in metastatic tumors and in a subgroup of patients who received an average of 7 lines of treatment the frequency was 20% (5/25; 95% CI, 7%–41%). These mutations were not detected in primary or treatment-naïve ER+ cancer or in any stage of ER− disease. Functional studies in cell line models demonstrate that these mutations render estrogen receptor constitutive activity and confer partial resistance to currently available endocrine treatments.Conclusions: In this study, we show evidence for the temporal selection of functional ESR1 mutations as potential drivers of endocrine resistance during the progression of ER+ breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 20(7); 1757–67. ©2014 AACR.

PDF file - 187K, Supplementary Table 1: Detailed demographic information of all patients with metastatic breast cancer, including cohorts LM+ and EM+. Supplementary Table 2: ESR1 variant sequence data details. Abbreviations: cvg, coverage, N/A, non-applicable. Supplementary Table 3: List of genes sequenced by captured next generation sequencing. Supplementary figure 1: Genomic profiles of primary and metastatic tumors. Genomic alterations were found in 32 genes in primary and metastatic ER+ breast cancers. Genes are listed from the most frequently altered to least altered gene. Supplementary figure 2: No change in WT and mutant ER activity across a wide range of E2 doses. Luciferase activity in 293T cells after co-transfection of the ERE-TK-Luc reporter vector along with WT-ER, Y537N or D538G and E2 stimulation using doses of E2 ranging from 0.01nM to 100nM or vehicle treatment.

XLSX file - 122K

ESR1 (estrogen receptor 1) hotspot mutations are major contributors to therapeutic resistance in estrogen receptor–positive (ER + ) breast cancer. Such mutations confer estrogen independence to ERα, providing a selective advantage in the presence of estrogen-depleting aromatase inhibitors. In addition, ESR1 mutations reduce the potency of tamoxifen and fulvestrant, therapies that bind ERα directly. These limitations, together with additional liabilities, inspired the development of the next generation of ERα-targeted therapeutics, of which giredestrant is a high-potential candidate. Here, we generated Esr1 mutant–expressing mammary gland models and leveraged patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) to investigate the biological properties of the ESR1 mutations and their sensitivity to giredestrant in vivo. In the mouse mammary gland, Esr1 mutations promote hypersensitivity to progesterone, triggering pregnancy-like tissue remodeling and profoundly elevated proliferation. These effects were driven by an altered progesterone transcriptional response and underpinned by gained sites of ERα-PR (progesterone receptor) cobinding at the promoter regions of pro-proliferation genes. PDX experiments showed that the mutant ERα-PR proliferative program is also relevant in human cancer cells. Giredestrant suppressed the mutant ERα-PR proliferation in the mammary gland more so than the standard-of-care agents, tamoxifen and fulvestrant. Giredestrant was also efficacious against the progesterone-stimulated growth of ESR1 mutant PDX models. In addition, giredestrant demonstrated activity against a molecularly characterized ESR1 mutant tumor from a patient enrolled in a phase 1 clinical trial. Together, these data suggest that mutant ERα can collaborate with PR to drive protumorigenic proliferation but remain sensitive to inhibition by giredestrant.

Purpose GDC-0810 (ARN-810) is a novel, non-steroidal, orally bioavailable, selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) that potentially inhibits ligand-dependent and ligand-independent estrogen receptor (ER)-mediated signaling. Methods A phase Ia/Ib/IIa dose escalation, combination treatment with palbociclib or a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, and expansion study determined the safety, pharmacokinetics, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of GDC-0810 in postmenopausal women with ER + (HER2 −) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Baseline plasma ctDNA samples were analyzed to determine the ESR1 mutation status. Results Patients (N = 152) received GDC-0810 100–800 mg once daily (QD) or 300–400 mg twice daily, in dose escalation, expansion, as single agent or combination treatment. Common adverse events regardless of attribution to study drug were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and constipation. There was one dose-limiting toxicity during dose escalation. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. GDC-0810 600 mg QD taken with food was the RP2D. Pharmacokinetics were predictable. FES reduction (> 90%) highlighting pharmacodynamic engagement of ER was observed. Outcomes for the overall population and for patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations included partial responses (4% overall; 4% ESR1), stable disease (39% overall; 42% ESR1), non-complete response/non-progressive disease (13% overall; 12% ESR1), progressive disease (40% overall; 38% ESR1), and missing/unevaluable (5% overall; 5% ESR1). Clinical benefit (responses or SD, lasting ≥ 24 weeks) was observed in patients in dose escalation (n = 16, 39%) and expansion (n = 24, 22%). Conclusion GDC-0810 was safe and tolerable with preliminary anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with ER + advanced/MBC, with/without ESR1 mutations, highlighting the potential for oral SERDs. Clinical Trial and registration date April 4, 2013. NCT01823835 .

Background: PD-L1 expression evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a well-established predictor of anti-PD-L1/PD-1 cancer immunotherapy (CIT). The Phase II LCMC3 (NCT02927301) study evaluated pre-operative treatment (tx) with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) in pts with untreated early stage resectable NSCLC, achieving a 20% major pathologic response (MPR) rate (primary efficacy pts, n=143). A digital PD-L1 scoring method was developed to assess PD-L1 expression as a potential predictive marker for MPR in squamous and non-squamous tumor samples from LCMC3. Methods: Manual scoring was used to determine PD-L1 status on pre-tx biopsy samples using the tumor proportion score (TPS) with a positive threshold of TPS≥50 (22C3). Binary results were correlated with MPR and stratified by squamous/non-squamous histology. A digital pathology workflow for automated PD-L1 scoring was developed to yield a precise continuous PD-L1 TPS. Deep convolutional neural networks trained using pathologist annotations were used to detect individual cells within the tumor and tumor microenvironment and quantify their PD-L1 expression. These cell type predictions were used to compute a digital PD-L1 TPS. LCMC3 pts with available digital and manual PD-L1 scores were then used to assess the role of PD-L1 expression in predicting MPR. Results: PD-L1 scores were available for pre-tx biopsies from 108 pts. No significant difference in scores was seen between histological subtypes. At cutoff (Oct 15, 2021), TPS≥50 was seen in 41 (non-squamous, n=26 [39%]; squamous, n=15 [36%]) of 108 pts and was associated with MPR in non-squamous (odds ratio [OR], 28.6; P Conclusions: These findings support using digitally assessed PD-L1 IHC as a centralized and standardized scoring system and suggest that tumor histological subtype could be an important factor in the utility of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker for neoadjuvant CIT in early stage NSCLC. Citation Format: John Abel, Christopher Rivard, Filip Kos, Guillaume Chhor, Yi Liu, Jennifer Giltnane, Sara Hoffman, Murray Resnick, Cyrus Hedvat, Amaro Taylor-Weiner, Farah Khalil, Alan Nicholas, Gregory A. Fishbein, Lynette M. Sholl, Natasha Rekhtman, Stephanie Hennek, Ilan Wapinski, Ann Johnson, Michael Montalto, Katja Schulze, Bruce E. Johnson, David P. Carbone, Konstantin Shilo, Andrew H. Beck, Sanja Dacic, William D. Travis, Ignacio Wistuba. AI-powered and manual assessment of PD-L1 are comparable in predicting response to neoadjuvant atezolizumab in patients (pts) with resectable non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT112.

Inhibitors of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) signaling axis are approved to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, based on their significant overall survival (OS) benefit. Using transcriptomic analysis of 891 NSCLC tumors from patients treated with either the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab or chemotherapy from two large randomized clinical trials, we find a significant B cell association with extended OS with PD-L1 blockade, independent of CD8

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. Despite having a lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than most tumor types (1), multiple gene fusions such as TMPRSS2-ERG have been characterized in prostate cancer and have been linked to aggressive disease (1). Individual tumor samples may contain multiple fusions and it is unknown whether these fusions could increase tumor immunogenicity. Here we investigated the effects of fusion burden on the expression of key molecular and immune effectors in prostate cancer specimens representing different stages of disease progression and androgen sensitivity (hormone sensitive vs metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)). Methods: 187 prostate samples taken from different stages of PrCa including Early/intermediate (n:30), late (n:112) and metastatic disease (n:9) were interrogated by RNASeq and assessed for mutation burden (mutations/MB of the genome) and fusion burden (number of fusions/10,000 genes profiled in each sample). To characterize the immune microenvironment, stromal TILS, % immune infiltrate, CD8+ T-cells, and PDL-1 expression were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Key molecular and immune gene signatures derived from the expression data were clustered according to disease stage, mutation or fusion burden, and hormone sensitive vs mCRPC disease (determined by mCRPC score from (2)). Results and Conclusion: TMB was very low across all samples analyzed (0.01-1.2 mutations per MB) while fusion burden ranged from 0 to 34 fusions/10,000 genes (up to 70 fusion(s) per sample) and was inversely correlated to TMB and not associated with disease stage. High fusion burden across samples correlated with high cell cycle progression and AR signaling (P Note: This abstract was not presented at the meeting. Citation Format: Marie Wagle, Kobe Yuen, Edward E. Kadel, Thomas Holcomb, Shrividhya Srinivasan, Joseph Castillo, Dan Halligan, Adrian Carr, Max Bylesjo, Julian Augley, Simone Daminelli, Mark Kockx, Yannick Waumans, Jennifer Giltnane, Zineb Mounir. Association of tumor fusion burden with immune presence and androgen sensitivity in prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2149.