Integrating Tumor-Intrinsic and Immunologic Factors to Identify Immunogenic Breast Cancers from a Low-Risk Cohort: Results from the Randomized SweBCG91RT Trial.

PURPOSE: The local immune infiltrate's influence on tumor progression may be closely linked to tumor-intrinsic factors. The study aimed to investigate whether integrating immunologic and tumor-intrinsic factors can identify patients from a low-risk cohort who may be candidates for radiotherapy (RT) de-escalation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The SweBCG91RT trial included 1,178 patients with stage I to IIA breast cancer, randomized to breast-conserving surgery with or without adjuvant RT, and followed for a median of 15.2 years. We trained two models designed to capture immunologic activity and immunomodulatory tumor-intrinsic qualities, respectively. We then analyzed if combining these two variables could further stratify tumors, allowing for identifying a subgroup where RT de-escalation is feasible, despite clinical indicators of a high risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). RESULTS: The prognostic effect of the immunologic model could be predicted by the tumor-intrinsic model (Pinteraction = 0.01). By integrating measurements of the immunologic- and tumor-intrinsic models, patients who benefited from an active immune infiltrate could be identified. These patients benefited from standard RT (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.85; P = 0.025) and had a 5.4% 10-year incidence of IBTR after irradiation despite high-risk genomic indicators and a low frequency of systemic therapy. In contrast, high-risk tumors without an immune infiltrate had a high 10-year incidence of IBTR despite RT treatment (19.5%; 95% CI, 12.2-30.3). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating tumor-intrinsic and immunologic factors may identify immunogenic tumors in early-stage breast cancer populations dominated by ER-positive tumors. Patients who benefit from an activated immune infiltrate may be candidates for RT de-escalation.

Development and Validation of a Genomic Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation in Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) is used for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery. However, some women with low risk of recurrence may safely be spared RT. This study aimed to identify these women using a molecular-based approach. METHODS: We analyzed two randomized trials of women with node-negative invasive breast cancer to ± RT following breast-conserving surgery: SweBCG91-RT (stage I-II, no adjuvant systemic therapy) and Princess Margaret (age 50 years or older, T1-T2, adjuvant tamoxifen). Transcriptome-wide profiling was performed (Affymetrix Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray). Patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors and with gene expression data were included. The SweBCG91-RT cohort was divided into training (N = 243) and validation (N = 354) cohorts. A 16-gene signature named Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation (POLAR) was trained to predict locoregional recurrence (LRR) using elastic net regression. POLAR was then validated in the SweBCG91-RT validation cohort and the Princess Margaret cohort (N = 132). RESULTS: Patients categorized as POLAR low-risk without RT had a 10-year LRR of 6% (95% CI, 2 to 16) and 7% (0 to 27) in SweBCG91-RT and Princess Margaret cohorts, respectively. There was no significant benefit from RT in POLAR low-risk patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1 [0.39 to 3.4], P = .81, and HR, 1.5 [0.14 to 16], P = .74, respectively). Patients categorized as POLAR high-risk had a significant decreased risk of LRR with RT (HR, 0.43 [0.24 to 0.78], P = .0055, and HR, 0.25 [0.07 to 0.92], P = .038, respectively). An exploratory analysis testing for interaction between RT and POLAR in the combined validation cohort was performed (P = .066). CONCLUSION: The novel POLAR genomic signature on the basis of LRR biology may identify patients with a low risk of LRR despite not receiving RT, and thus may be candidates for RT omission.

Evaluation of the Sensitivity to Endocrine Therapy Index and 21-Gene Breast Recurrence Score in the SWOG S8814 Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy has not demonstrated benefit over adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer with a 21-gene breast recurrence score (RS) of 25 or below (RS ≤ 25). We tested whether combined results from RS and the sensitivity to endocrine therapy (SET2,3) index of endocrine-related transcription (SETER/PR) adjusted for baseline prognostic index (BPI) improve prognostic assessment, and whether SET2,3 predicted benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A blinded retrospective clinical validation of SET2,3 in two randomized treatment arms from the SWOG S8814 trial comparing adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen endocrine therapy for 5 years, versus tamoxifen alone. SET2,3 assay was calibrated and measured using whole-transcriptome RNA sequence of tumor samples already tested for RS. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: There were 106 events in 283 patients over a median follow-up of 8.99 years. Proportional hazards assumptions were met during the first 5 years only. SET2,3 index and RS were not correlated (r = -0.04) and were independently prognostic (SET2,3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 per unit; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.68; P < .001; RS: HR, 1.28 per 10 units; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.44; P < .001). SET2,3 index did not predict chemotherapy benefit (interaction P = .77). SET2,3 was high in 93/175 (53%) patients with RS ≤ 25 (concordant low-risk), with 5-year DFS 97%. SET2,3 was low in 55/108 (51%) patients with RS > 25 (concordant high-risk), with 5-year DFS 53%. Both components of SET2,3 index were prognostic after adjustment for RS: SETER/PR (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92) and BPI (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.64). CONCLUSION: SET2,3 index was not correlated with RS, demonstrated additive prognostic performance, and was not chemopredictive in this subset of patients from S8814. The SETER/PR and BPI components of SET2,3 each added prognostic information to RS.

Bcl-xL inhibition radiosensitizes PIK3CA/PTEN wild-type triple negative breast cancers with low Mcl-1 expression.

Patients with radioresistant breast cancers, including a large percentage of women with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), demonstrate limited response to radiation (RT) and increased locoregional recurrence; thus, strategies to increase the efficacy of RT in TNBC are critically needed. We demonstrate that pan Bcl-2 family inhibition (ABT-263, rER: 1.52-1.56) or Bcl-xL specific inhibition (WEHI-539, A-1331852; rER: 1.31-2.00) radiosensitized wild-type PIK3CA/PTEN TNBC (MDA-MB-231, CAL-120) but failed to radiosensitize mutant PIK3CA/PTEN TNBC (rER: 0.90 - 1.07; MDA-MB-468, CAL-51, SUM-159). Specific inhibition of Bcl-2 or Mcl-1 did not induce radiosensitization, regardless of PIK3CA/PTEN status (rER: 0.95 - 1.07). In wild-type PIK3CA/PTEN TNBC, pan Bcl-2 family inhibition or Bcl-xL specific inhibition with RT led to increased levels of apoptosis (p < 0.001) and an increase in cleaved PARP and cleaved caspase 3. CRISPR-mediated PTEN knockout in wild-type PIK3CA/PTEN MDA-MB-231 and CAL-120 cells induced expression of pAKT/Akt and Mcl-1 and abolished Bcl-xL inhibitor-mediated radiosensitization (rER: 0.94 - 1.07). Similarly, Mcl-1 overexpression abolished radiosensitization in MDA-MB-231 and CAL-120 cells (rER: 1.02 - 1.04) but transient MCL1 knockdown in CAL-51 cells promoted Bcl-xL-inhibitor mediated radiosensitization (rER 2.35 ± 0.05). In vivo, ABT-263 or A-1331852 in combination with RT decreased tumor growth and increased tumor tripling time (p < 0.0001) in PIK3CA/PTEN wild-type TNBC cell line and patient-derived xenografts. Collectively, this study provides the preclinical rationale for early phase clinical trials testing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Bcl-xL inhibition and RT in women with wild-type PIK3CA/PTEN wild-type TNBC at high risk for recurrence.

Updates in combined approaches of radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent non-skin cancer diagnosed in females and developing novel therapeutic strategies to improve patient outcomes is crucial. The immune system plays an integral role in the body's response to breast cancer and modulating this immune response through immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic option. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors were recently approved for the treatment of breast cancer patients, not all patients respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors as a monotherapy, highlighting the need to better understand the biology underlying patient response. Additionally, as radiotherapy is a critical component of breast cancer treatment, understanding the interplay of radiation and immune checkpoint inhibitors will be vital as recent studies suggest that combined therapies may induce synergistic effects in preclinical models of breast cancer. This review will discuss the mechanisms supporting combined approaches with radiotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of breast cancer. Moreover, this review will analyze the current clinical trials examining combined approaches of radiotherapy, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy. Finally, this review will evaluate data regarding treatment tolerance and potential biomarkers for these emerging therapies aimed at improving breast cancer outcomes.

Androgen and oestrogen receptor co-expression determines the efficacy of hormone receptor-mediated radiosensitisation in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and hormone receptor (HR) inhibition are used for the treatment of HR-positive breast cancers; however, little is known about the interaction of the androgen receptor (AR) and estrogen receptor (ER) in response to RT in AR-positive, ER-positive (AR+/ER+) breast cancers. Here we assessed radiosensitisation of AR+/ER+ cell lines using pharmacologic or genetic inhibition/degradation of AR and/or ER. METHODS: Radiosensitisation was assessed with AR antagonists (enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, seviteronel, ARD-61), ER antagonists (tamoxifen, fulvestrant) or using knockout of AR. RESULTS: Treatment with AR antagonists or ER antagonists in combination with RT did not result in radiosensitisation changes (radiation enhancement ratios [rER]: 0.76-1.21). Fulvestrant treatment provided significant radiosensitisation of CAMA-1 and BT-474 cells (rER: 1.06-2.0) but not ZR-75-1 cells (rER: 0.9-1.11). Combining tamoxifen with enzalutamide did not alter radiosensitivity using a 1 h or 1-week pretreatment (rER: 0.95-1.14). Radiosensitivity was unchanged in AR knockout compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 1.07 ± 0.11), and no additional radiosensitisation was achieved with tamoxifen or fulvestrant compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 0.84-1.19). CONCLUSION: While radiosensitising in AR + TNBC, AR inhibition does not modulate radiation sensitivity in AR+/ER+ breast cancer. The efficacy of ER antagonists in combination with RT may also be dependent on AR expression.

Estrogen receptor inhibition mediates radiosensitization of ER-positive breast cancer models.

Endocrine therapy (ET) is an effective first-line therapy for women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER + ) breast cancers. While both ionizing radiation (RT) and ET are used for the treatment of women with ER+ breast cancer, the most effective sequencing of therapy and the effect of ET on tumor radiosensitization remains unclear. Here we sought to understand the effects of inhibiting estrogen receptor (ER) signaling in combination with RT in multiple preclinical ER+ breast cancer models. Clonogenic survival assays were performed using variable pre- and post-treatment conditions to assess radiosensitization with estradiol, estrogen deprivation, tamoxifen, fulvestrant, or AZD9496 in ER+ breast cancer cell lines. Estrogen stimulation was radioprotective (radiation enhancement ratios [rER]: 0.51-0.82). Conversely, when given one hour prior to RT, ER inhibition or estrogen depletion radiosensitized ER+ MCF-7 and T47D cells (tamoxifen rER: 1.50-1.60, fulvestrant rER: 1.76-2.81, AZD9496 rER: 1.33-1.48, estrogen depletion rER: 1.47-1.51). Combination treatment resulted in an increase in double-strand DNA (dsDNA) breaks as a result of inhibition of non-homologous end joining-mediated dsDNA break repair with no effect on homologous recombination. Treatment with tamoxifen or fulvestrant in combination with RT also increased the number of senescent cells but did not affect apoptosis or cell cycle distribution. Using an MCF-7 xenograft model, concurrent treatment with tamoxifen and RT was synergistic and resulted in a significant decrease in tumor volume and a delay in time to tumor doubling without significant toxicity. These findings provide preclinical evidence that concurrent treatment with ET and RT may be an effective radiosensitization strategy.

RB expression confers sensitivity to CDK4/6 inhibitor-mediated radiosensitization across breast cancer subtypes.

Standard radiation therapy (RT) does not reliably provide locoregional control for women with multinode-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We hypothesized that CDK4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i) would increase the radiosensitivity not only of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) cells, but also of TNBC that expresses retinoblastoma (RB) protein. We found that CDK4/6i radiosensitized RB WT TNBC (n = 4, radiation enhancement ratio [rER]: 1.49-2.22) but failed to radiosensitize RB-null TNBC (n = 3, rER: 0.84-1.00). RB expression predicted response to CDK4/6i + RT (R2 = 0.84), and radiosensitization was lost in ER+/TNBC cells (rER: 0.88-1.13) after RB1 knockdown in isogenic and nonisogenic models. CDK4/6i suppressed homologous recombination (HR) in RB WT cells but not in RB-null cells or isogenic models of RB1 loss; HR competency was rescued with RB reexpression. Radiosensitization was independent of nonhomologous end joining and the known effects of CDK4/6i on cell cycle arrest. Mechanistically, RB and RAD51 interact in vitro to promote HR repair. CDK4/6i produced RB-dependent radiosensitization in TNBC xenografts but not in isogenic RB1-null xenografts. Our data provide the preclinical rationale for a clinical trial expanding the use of CDK4/6i + RT to difficult-to-control RB-intact breast cancers (including TNBC) and nominate RB status as a predictive biomarker of therapeutic efficacy.

The Role of Circulating Tumor Cells in Breast Cancer and Implications for Radiation Treatment Decisions.

Tumor biomarkers are used routinely in oncology to assign risk categorization, screen and assist in diagnosis of malignancy, allow for prognostication and prediction of outcomes and treatment response, and allow for monitoring of patients after treatment completion. Although tissue-based biomarkers have a long history of use, the emergence of liquid-based biomarkers, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), may soon revolutionize the management of patients with cancer. Here, we review the discovery of CTCs and their role as prognostic and predictive biomarkers, with an emphasis on breast cancer. We discuss the platforms for CTC enumeration and focus on studies using the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved platform for CTC enumeration (CellSearch). In addition, we examine the role of CTCs in women with metastatic, inflammatory, and nonmetastatic breast cancer, as well as the clinical evidence for their use as a surrogate for radiation treatment response as well as surveillance after treatment. Finally, we conclude by investigating ongoing clinical studies assessing CTCs as radiation response predictors and discuss unanswered questions.

ARe we there yet? Understanding androgen receptor signaling in breast cancer.

The role of androgen receptor (AR) activation and expression is well understood in prostate cancer. In breast cancer, expression and activation of AR is increasingly recognized for its role in cancer development and its importance in promoting cell growth in the presence or absence of estrogen. As both prostate and breast cancers often share a reliance on nuclear hormone signaling, there is increasing appreciation of the overlap between activated cellular pathways in these cancers in response to androgen signaling. Targeting of the androgen receptor as a monotherapy or in combination with other conventional therapies has proven to be an effective clinical strategy for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer, and these therapeutic strategies are increasingly being investigated in breast cancer. This overlap suggests that targeting androgens and AR signaling in other cancer types may also be effective. This manuscript will review the role of AR in various cellular processes that promote tumorigenesis and metastasis, first in prostate cancer and then in breast cancer, as well as discuss ongoing efforts to target AR for the more effective treatment and prevention of cancer, especially breast cancer.

Short-term CDK4/6 Inhibition Radiosensitizes Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancers.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors have improved progression-free survival for metastatic, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancers, but their role in the nonmetastatic setting remains unclear. We sought to understand the effects of CDK4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i) and radiotherapy in multiple preclinical breast cancer models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Transcriptomic and proteomic analyses were used to identify significantly altered pathways after CDK4/6i. Clonogenic assays were used to quantify the radiotherapy enhancement ratio (rER). DNA damage was quantified using γH2AX staining and the neutral comet assay. DNA repair was assessed using RAD51 foci formation and nonhomologous end joining (NHEJ) reporter assays. Orthotopic xenografts were used to assess the efficacy of combination therapy. RESULTS: Palbociclib significantly radiosensitized multiple ER+ cell lines at low nanomolar, sub IC50 concentrations (rER: 1.21-1.52) and led to a decrease in the surviving fraction of cells at 2 Gy (P < 0.001). Similar results were observed in ribociclib-treated (rER: 1.08-1.68) and abemaciclib-treated (rER: 1.19-2.05) cells. Combination treatment decreased RAD51 foci formation (P < 0.001), leading to a suppression of homologous recombination activity, but did not affect NHEJ efficiency (P > 0.05). Immortalized breast epithelial cells and cells with acquired resistance to CDK4/6i did not demonstrate radiosensitization (rER: 0.94-1.11) or changes in RAD51 foci. In xenograft models, concurrent palbociclib and radiotherapy led to a significant decrease in tumor growth. CONCLUSIONS: These studies provide preclinical rationale to test CDK4/6i and radiotherapy in women with locally advanced ER+ breast cancer at high risk for locoregional recurrence.

Comprehensive Transcriptomic Profiling Identifies Breast Cancer Patients Who May Be Spared Adjuvant Systemic Therapy.

PURPOSE: There is currently no molecular signature in clinical use for adjuvant endocrine therapy omission in breast cancer. Given the unique trial design of SweBCG91-RT, where adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy were largely unadministered, we sought to evaluate the potential of transcriptomic profiling for identifying patients who may be spared adjuvant endocrine therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We performed a whole-transcriptome analysis of SweBCG91-RT, a randomized phase III trial of ± radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for node-negative stage I-IIA breast cancer. Ninety-two percent of patients were untreated by both adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. We calculated 15 transcriptomic signatures from the literature and combined them into an average genomic risk, which was further used to derive a novel 141-gene signature (MET141). All signatures were then independently examined in SweBCG91-RT and in the publicly available METABRIC cohort. RESULTS: In SweBCG91-RT, 454 patients were node-negative, postmenopausal, and systemically untreated with ER-positive, HER2-negative cancers, which constitutes a low-risk subgroup and potential candidates for therapy omission. Most transcriptomic signatures were highly prognostic for distant metastasis, but considerable discordance was observed on the individual patient level. Within the MET141 low-risk subgroup (lowest 25th percentile of scores), 95% of patients were free of metastasis at 15 years, even in the absence of adjuvant endocrine therapy. In a clinically low-risk subgroup of the METABRIC cohort not treated with systemic therapy, no breast cancer death occurred among the MET141 low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Transcriptomic profiling identifies patients with an excellent outcome without any systemic adjuvant therapy in clinically low-risk patients of the SweBCG91-RT and METABRIC cohorts.

Clinicogenomic Radiotherapy Classifier Predicting the Need for Intensified Locoregional Treatment After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Most patients with early-stage breast cancer are treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) to prevent locoregional recurrence (LRR). However, no genomic tools are used currently to select the optimal RT strategy. METHODS: We profiled the transcriptome of primary tumors on a clinical grade assay from the SweBCG91-RT trial, in which patients with node-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to either whole-breast RT after BCS or no RT. We derived a new classifier, Adjuvant Radiotherapy Intensification Classifier (ARTIC), comprising 27 genes and patient age, in three publicly available cohorts, then independently validated ARTIC for LRR in 748 patients in SweBCG91-RT. We also compared previously published genomic signatures for ability to predict benefit from RT in SweBCG91-RT. RESULTS: ARTIC was highly prognostic for LRR in patients treated with RT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.4; 95% CI, 2.0 to 5.9; P < .001) and predictive of RT benefit (Pinteraction = .005). Patients with low ARTIC scores had a large benefit from RT (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.52], P < .001; 10-year cumulative incidence of LRR, 6% v 21%), whereas those with high ARTIC scores benefited less from RT (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.44 to 1.2], P = .23; 10-year cumulative incidence of LRR, 25% v 32%). In contrast, none of the eight previously published signatures were predictive of benefit from RT in SweBCG91-RT. CONCLUSION: ARTIC identified women with a substantial benefit from RT as well as women with a particularly elevated LRR risk in whom whole-breast RT was not sufficiently effective and, thus, in whom intensified treatment strategies such as tumor-bed boost, and possibly regional nodal RT, should be considered. To our knowledge, ARTIC is the first classifier validated as predictive of benefit from RT in a phase III clinical trial with patients randomly assigned to receive or not receive RT.

Xenograft-based, platform-independent gene signatures to predict response to alkylating chemotherapy, radiation, and combination therapy for glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Predictive molecular biomarkers to select optimal treatment for patients with glioblastoma and other cancers are lacking. New strategies are needed when large randomized trials with correlative molecular data are not feasible. METHODS: Gene signatures (GS) were developed from 31 orthotopic glioblastoma patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), treated with standard therapies, to predict benefit from radiotherapy (RT-GS), temozolomide (Chemo-GS), or the combination (ChemoRT-GS). Independent validation was performed in a heterogeneously treated clinical cohort of 502 glioblastoma patients with overall survival as the primary endpoint. Multivariate Cox analysis was used to adjust for confounding variables and evaluate interactions between signatures and treatment. RESULTS: PDX models recapitulated the clinical heterogeneity of glioblastoma patients. RT-GS, Chemo-GS, and ChemoRT-GS were correlated with benefit from treatment in the PDX models. In independent clinical validation, higher RT-GS scores were associated with increased survival only in patients receiving RT (P = 0.0031, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78 [0.66-0.92]), higher Chemo-GS scores were associated with increased survival only in patients receiving chemotherapy (P < 0.0001, HR = 0.66 [0.55-0.8]), and higher ChemoRT-GS scores were associated with increased survival only in patients receiving ChemoRT (P = 0.0001, HR = 0.54 [0.4-0.74]). RT-GS and ChemoRT-GS had significant interactions with treatment on multivariate analysis (P = 0.0009 and 0.02, respectively), indicating that they are bona fide predictive biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel PDX-driven methodology, we developed and validated 3 platform-independent molecular signatures that predict benefit from standard of care therapies for glioblastoma. These signatures may be useful to personalize glioblastoma treatment in the clinic and this approach may be a generalizable method to identify predictive biomarkers without resource-intensive randomized trials.

Inhibition of the p38 kinase suppresses the proliferation of human ER-negative breast cancer cells.

p38 kinases are members of the mitogen-activated protein kinase family that transduce signals from various environmental stresses, growth factors, and steroid hormones. p38 is highly expressed in aggressive and invasive breast cancers. Increased levels of activated p38 are markers of poor prognosis. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that blockade of p38 signaling would inhibit breast cancer cell proliferation. We studied breast cancer cell proliferation and cell cycle regulation upon p38 blockade by using three independent approaches: dominant-negative (DN) constructs, small interfering RNA (siRNA), and small molecule inhibitors. p38alpha and p38delta are the most abundant isoforms expressed by all examined human breast tumors and breast cancer cell lines. Expression of a DN p38 inhibited both anchorage-dependent and -independent proliferation of MDA-MB-468 cells. Silencing of p38alpha, but not p38delta, using siRNA suppressed MDA-MB-468 cell proliferation. Pharmacologic inhibitors of p38 significantly inhibited the proliferation of p53 mutant and ER-negative breast cancer cells. Whereas p38 has previously been considered as a mediator of stress-induced apoptosis, we propose that p38 may have dual activities regulating survival and proliferation depending on the expression of p53. Our data suggest that p38 mediates the proliferation signal in breast cancer cells expressing mutant but not wild-type p53. Because most ER-negative breast tumors express mutant p53, our results provide the foundation for future development of p38 inhibitors to target p38 for the treatment of p53 mutant and ER-negative breast cancers.