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 ≥ 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.

Concordance of BRCA mutation detection in tumor versus blood, and frequency of bi-allelic loss of BRCA in tumors from patients in the phase III SOLO2 trial.

OBJECTIVE: Maintenance olaparib provided a progression-free survival benefit in the phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353) in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm). However, questions remain regarding tumor versus germline BRCA testing and the impact of heterozygous versus bi-allelic loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 in the tumor. METHODS: Blood and tumor samples were analyzed. A concordance analysis of germline BRCAm status (BRACAnalysis® CLIA test) and tumor BRCAm status (myChoice® CDx test) was conducted (Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc.). Bi-allelic loss of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and a genomic instability score (GIS) (myChoice® CDx test) were also determined. RESULTS: 289 of 295 enrolled patients had a germline BRCAm confirmed centrally and tumor BRCAm status was evaluable in 241 patients. There was 98% and 100% concordance between tumor and germline testing for BRCA1m and BRCA2m, respectively, with discordance found in four cases. Of 210 tumor samples evaluable for BRCA zygosity, 100% of germline BRCA1-mutated tumors (n = 144) and 98% of germline BRCA2-mutated tumors (n = 66) had bi-allelic loss of BRCA. One patient with a heterozygous BRCA2m had a GIS of 53, was progression free for 911 days and remained on olaparib at data cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Very high concordance was demonstrated between tumor and germline BRCA testing, supporting wider implementation of tumor BRCA testing in ovarian cancer. Near 100% rates of bi-allelic loss of BRCA in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian tumors suggest routine testing for BRCA zygosity is not required in this population and reflects BRCA loss being a driver of tumorigenesis.

Candidate biomarkers of PARP inhibitor sensitivity in ovarian cancer beyond the BRCA genes.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib (Lynparza™) is a PARP inhibitor approved for advanced BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors may benefit patients whose tumours are dysfunctional in DNA repair mechanisms unrelated to BRCA1/2. We report exploratory analyses, including the long-term outcome of candidate biomarkers of sensitivity to olaparib in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) tumours. METHODS: Tumour samples from an olaparib maintenance monotherapy trial (Study 19, D0810C00019; NCT00753545) were analysed. Analyses included classification of mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), BRCA1 promoter methylation status, measurement of BRCA1 protein and Myriad HRD score. RESULTS: Patients with BRCAm tumours gained most benefit from olaparib; a similar treatment benefit was also observed in 21/95 patients whose tumours were BRCAwt but had loss-of-function HRR mutations compared to patients with no detectable HRR mutations (58/95). A higher median Myriad MyChoice® HRD score was observed in BRCAm and BRCAwt tumours with BRCA1 methylation. Patients without BRCAm tumours derived benefit from olaparib treatment vs placebo although to a lesser extent than BRCAm patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer patients with tumours harbouring loss-of-function mutations in HRR genes other than BRCA1/2 may constitute a small, molecularly identifiable and clinically relevant population who derive treatment benefit from olaparib similar to patients with BRCAm.

Biological and clinical evidence for somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 as predictive markers for olaparib response in high-grade serous ovarian cancers in the maintenance setting.

To gain a better understanding of the role of somatic mutations in olaparib response, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of BRCA1 and BRCA2 was performed as part of a planned retrospective analysis of tumors from a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial (Study 19; D0810C00019; NCT00753545) in 265 patients with platinum-sensitive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2 loss-of-function mutations were found in 55% (114/209) of tumors, were mutually exclusive, and demonstrated high concordance with Sanger-sequenced germline mutations in matched blood samples, confirming the accuracy (97%) of tumor BRCA1/2 NGS testing. Additionally, NGS identified somatic mutations absent from germline testing in 10% (20/209) of the patients. Somatic mutations had >80% biallelic inactivation frequency and were predominantly clonal, suggesting that BRCA1/2 loss occurs early in the development of these cancers. Clinical outcomes between placebo- and olaparib-treated patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were similar to those with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, indicating that patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations benefit from treatment with olaparib.

Long-Term Responders on Olaparib Maintenance in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Clinical and Molecular Characterization.

Purpose: Maintenance therapy with olaparib has improved progression-free survival in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. The objective of this study was to characterize long-term (LT) versus short-term (ST) responders to olaparib.Experimental Design: A comparative molecular analysis of Study 19 (NCT00753545), a randomized phase II trial assessing olaparib maintenance after response to platinum-based chemotherapy in HGSOC, was conducted. LT response was defined as response to olaparib/placebo >2 years, ST as <3 months. Molecular analyses included germline BRCA1/2 status, three-biomarker homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) score, BRCA1 methylation, and mutational profiling. Another olaparib maintenance study (Study 41; NCT01081951) was used as an additional cohort.Results: Thirty-seven LT (32 olaparib) and 61 ST (21 olaparib) patients were identified. Treatment was significantly associated with outcome (P < 0.0001), with more LT patients on olaparib (60.4%) than placebo (11.1%). LT sensitivity to olaparib correlated with complete response to chemotherapy (P < 0.05). In the olaparib LT group, 244 genetic alterations were detected, with TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2 mutations being most common (90%, 25%, and 35%, respectively). BRCA2 mutations were enriched among the LT responders. BRCA methylation was not associated with response duration. High myriad HRD score (>42) and/or BRCA1/2 mutation was associated with LT response to olaparib. Study 41 confirmed the correlation of LT response with olaparib and BRCA1/2 mutation.Conclusions: Findings show that LT response to olaparib may be multifactorial and related to homologous recombination repair deficiency, particularly BRCA1/2 defects. The type of BRCA1/2 mutation warrants further investigation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4086-94. ©2017 AACR.

Clinically Viable Gene Expression Assays with Potential for Predicting Benefit from MEK Inhibitors.

Purpose: To develop a clinically viable gene expression assay to measure RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK (RAS-ERK) pathway output suitable for hypothesis testing in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinical studies.Experimental Design: A published MEK functional activation signature (MEK signature) that measures RAS-ERK functional output was optimized for NSCLC in silico NanoString assays were developed for the NSCLC optimized MEK signature and the 147-gene RAS signature. First, platform transfer from Affymetrix to NanoString, and signature modulation following treatment with KRAS siRNA and MEK inhibitor, were investigated in cell lines. Second, the association of the signatures with KRAS mutation status, dynamic range, technical reproducibility, and spatial and temporal variation was investigated in NSCLC formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPET) samples.Results: We observed a strong cross-platform correlation and modulation of signatures in vitro Technical and biological replicates showed consistent signature scores that were robust to variation in input total RNA; conservation of scores between primary and metastatic tumor was statistically significant. There were statistically significant associations between high MEK (P = 0.028) and RAS (P = 0.003) signature scores and KRAS mutation in 50 NSCLC samples. The signatures identify overlapping but distinct candidate patient populations from each other and from KRAS mutation testing.Conclusions: We developed a technically and biologically robust NanoString gene expression assay of MEK pathway output, compatible with the quantities of FFPET routinely available. The gene signatures identified a different patient population for MEK inhibitor treatment compared with KRAS mutation testing. The predictive power of the MEK signature should be studied further in clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1471-80. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Xue and Lito, p. 1365.

Correlation between MEK signature and Ras gene alteration in advanced gastric cancer.

MEK inhibitor (selumetinib) is a potent, orally active inhibitor of MAPK/ERK pathway. It is important to develop an accurate and robust method indicative of RAS pathway activity to stratify potential patients who can benefit from selumetinib treatment in gastric cancer (GC). First, we surveyed the sensitivity to selumetinib in a panel of 22 GC cell lines and correlated with MEK signature to selumetinib sensitivity. Next, we analyzed MEK signature via nanostring assay in two Asian cohorts using clinical samples (n = 218) and then performed a correlative analysis with MEK signature status and KRAS genotype in GC. MEK signature was predictive of response of selumetinib in GC cell lines regardless of KRAS mutation status. The proportion of high MEK signature by nanostring assay was 6.9% and the proportion of high MEK signature was significantly higher in KRAS altered group in a Korean cohort. None of PIK3CA altered cases belonged to high MEK signature group. MEK high signature was more prevalent in intestinal type by Lauren classification. The correlation between MEK signature, KRAS alteration and treatment response to selumetinib should be validated in prospective clinical trials.

Defining actionable mutations for oncology therapeutic development.

Genomic profiling of tumours in patients in clinical trials enables rapid testing of multiple hypotheses to confirm which genomic events determine likely responder groups for targeted agents. A key challenge of this new capability is defining which specific genomic events should be classified as 'actionable' (that is, potentially responsive to a targeted therapy), especially when looking for early indications of patient subgroups likely to be responsive to new drugs. This Opinion article discusses some of the different approaches being taken in early clinical development to define actionable mutations, and describes our strategy to address this challenge in early-stage exploratory clinical trials.

Practical perspectives of personalized healthcare in oncology.

There is an increasing prevalence of drug-diagnostic combinations in oncology. This has placed diagnostic stakeholders directly into the complex benefit-risk, cost, value and uncertainty-driven development paradigm traditionally the preserve of the drug development community. In this review we focus on the delivery of the clinical data required to advance such drug-diagnostic combination development programmes and ultimately satisfy regulators and payors of the value of contemporaneous changes in diagnostic and treatment practice. Ideally all stakeholders would like to initially estimate, and ultimately specify, the comparative benefit-risk for a new treatment option with and without changing diagnostic practice. Hence, in an ideal world clinical trial design is focused on acquiring biomarker treatment interaction data. In this review we describe the key scientific and feasibility inputs required to design and deliver such trials and the drivers, advantages and disadvantages associated with departing from this model. We do not discuss the discovery of new biomarkers nor the analytical validation and marketing of diagnostic products. Following on from trial design we describe how subsequent success then depends upon the concepts that guide trial design being driven into the complex world of large, multinational clinical trial delivery. For every aspect of a traditional clinical drug trial such as supply, recruitment and adherence, there is a corresponding concept for the diagnostic element. In practice, this means that each patient's contribution to the decision making data-set is subject to double jeopardy (attrition on clinical outcome and biomarker status). Historically, this has led to significantly reduced power for detecting biomarker-treatment interactions, reduced decision making confidence and a waste of valuable human and financial resources. We describe recent practice changes and experience that have led to the successful delivery of such trials focusing on both pre- and on trial aspects. The former includes the pivotal role of tissue banks in accurate estimation of evaluability and prevalence for biomarker assays and the latter several practices designed to engage and incentivize key stakeholders particularly CRAs and pathologists. The result is that in the new world of developing personalized treatments for cancer patients the real-time acquisition and monitoring of biomarker data receives similar support to that traditionally reserved for clinical outcome data and far more patients contribute to the testing of personalized medicine hypotheses.

Circulating tumour-derived predictive biomarkers in oncology.

Molecular characterization of tumour material will become increasingly important in selecting patients for clinical trials and offering appropriate treatment for patients in clinical practice. Recent advances in the field have indicated that the molecular characteristics of a tumour can be determined from circulating tumour cells and circulating tumour DNA; thus, a simple blood sample could provide these data in a simple, convenient and efficient manner. This article discusses progress towards guiding treatment decisions through measuring tumour-derived factors in the circulation.

Biomarkers in oncology drug development.

Biomarker measurements have become an essential component of oncology drug development, particularly so in this era of targeted therapies. Such measurements ensure that clinical studies are testing our biological hypotheses and can help make the difficult decisions required to choose which drugs to stop developing or de-prioritise. For those drugs taken forward, biomarker measurements may also help choose the appropriate dose, schedule and patient population. In this review we discuss the intrinsic properties of biological sample based efficacy measurements and how these relate to their implementation in oncology drug development by way of points to consider and examples.

Development of a facile fluorescent assay for the detection of 80 mutations within the p53 gene.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene constitute one of the most frequent genetic events associated with the development of human cancers. Determination of an individual's p53 status may be of value in early diagnosis, prediction of response to treatment, and for the detection of minimal residual cancer. Recent studies have also revealed that specific mutations affecting the p53 gene are associated with a poor outcome. The majority of tumor biopsies that are sent for study in the laboratory contain neoplastic cells intermingled with stroma, such that the detection of alterations in the p53 gene requires a tumor enrichment technique and/or highly sensitive mutation detection technologies. Thus, it is desirable that a clinically useful assay for detecting point mutations in the p53 gene function in the presence of significant quantities of wild-type sequence and identify the critical sequence aberrations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized molecular beacons in a real-time allele-specific PCR format to obtain reference data on samples of quantitatively known p53 mutation status. These data have been statistically analyzed and the results used to detect p53 mutations, indicating the presence of occult tumor. RESULTS: We describe validation of a simple, rapid, sensitive, and quantitative ARMS assay for identifying the levels of 80 point mutations within the p53 gene that, when mutated, constitute at least 1% of the total p53 sequences. CONCLUSIONS: The assay successfully identifies rare p53 gene mutations in clinical samples and overcomes many of the limitations of current technologies.