Gene expression signatures, clinicopathological features, and individualized therapy in breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Gene expression profiling may be useful for prognostic and therapeutic strategies in breast carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the value in integrating genomic information with clinical and pathological risk factors, to refine prognosis, and to improve therapeutic strategies for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective study of patients with early stage breast carcinoma who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy; 964 clinically annotated breast tumor samples (573 in the initial discovery set and 391 in the validation cohort) with corresponding microarray data were used. All patients were assigned relapse risk scores based on their respective clinicopathological features. Signatures representing oncogenic pathway activation and tumor biology/microenvironment status were applied to these samples to obtain patterns of deregulation that correspond with relapse risk scores to refine prognosis with the clinicopathological prognostic model alone. Predictors of chemotherapeutic response were also applied to further characterize clinically relevant heterogeneity in early stage breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gene expression signatures and clinicopathological variables in early stage breast cancer to determine a refined estimation of relapse-free survival and sensitivity to chemotherapy. RESULTS: In the initial data set of 573 patients, prognostically significant clusters representing patterns of oncogenic pathway activation and tumor biology/microenvironment states were identified within the low-risk (log-rank P = .004), intermediate-risk (log-rank P = .01), and high-risk (log-rank P = .003) model cohorts, representing clinically important genomic subphenotypes of breast cancer. As an example, in the low-risk cohort, of 6 prognostically significant clusters, patients in cluster 4 had an inferior relapse-free survival vs patients in cluster 1 (log-rank P = .004) and cluster 5 (log-rank P = .03). Median relapse-free survival for patients in cluster 4 was 16 months less than for patients in cluster 1 (95% CI, 7.5-24.5 months) and 19 months less than for patients in cluster 5 (95% CI, 10.5-27.5 months). Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent prognostic value of the genomic clusters (low risk, P = .05; high risk, P = .02). The reproducibility and validity of these patterns of pathway deregulation in predicting relapse risk was established using related but not identical clusters in the independent validation cohort. The prognostic clinicogenomic clusters also have unique sensitivity patterns to commonly used cytotoxic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence that incorporation of gene expression signatures into clinical risk stratification can refine prognosis. Prospective studies are needed to determine the value of this approach for individualizing therapeutic strategies.

An integrated approach to the prediction of chemotherapeutic response in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in oncology is the selection of the most effective chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients, while the administration of ineffective chemotherapy increases mortality and decreases quality of life in cancer patients. This emphasizes the need to evaluate every patient's probability of responding to each chemotherapeutic agent and limiting the agents used to those most likely to be effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using gene expression data on the NCI-60 and corresponding drug sensitivity, mRNA and microRNA profiles were developed representing sensitivity to individual chemotherapeutic agents. The mRNA signatures were tested in an independent cohort of 133 breast cancer patients treated with the TFAC (paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy regimen. To further dissect the biology of resistance, we applied signatures of oncogenic pathway activation and performed hierarchical clustering. We then used mRNA signatures of chemotherapy sensitivity to identify alternative therapeutics for patients resistant to TFAC. Profiles from mRNA and microRNA expression data represent distinct biologic mechanisms of resistance to common cytotoxic agents. The individual mRNA signatures were validated in an independent dataset of breast tumors (P = 0.002, NPV = 82%). When the accuracy of the signatures was analyzed based on molecular variables, the predictive ability was found to be greater in basal-like than non basal-like patients (P = 0.03 and P = 0.06). Samples from patients with co-activated Myc and E2F represented the cohort with the lowest percentage (8%) of responders. Using mRNA signatures of sensitivity to other cytotoxic agents, we predict that TFAC non-responders are more likely to be sensitive to docetaxel (P = 0.04), representing a viable alternative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the optimal strategy for chemotherapy sensitivity prediction integrates molecular variables such as ER and HER2 status with corresponding microRNA and mRNA expression profiles. Importantly, we also present evidence to support the concept that analysis of molecular variables can present a rational strategy to identifying alternative therapeutic opportunities.

Pharmacogenomic strategies provide a rational approach to the treatment of cisplatin-resistant patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes the use of a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. However, response rates are highly variable. Newer agents, such as pemetrexed, have shown significant activity as second-line therapy and are currently being evaluated in the front-line setting. We utilized a genomic strategy to develop signatures predictive of chemotherapeutic response to both cisplatin and pemetrexed to provide a rational approach to effective individualized medicine. METHODS: Using in vitro drug sensitivity data, coupled with microarray data, we developed gene expression signatures predicting sensitivity to cisplatin and pemetrexed. Signatures were validated with response data from 32 independent ovarian and lung cancer cell lines as well as 59 samples from patients previously treated with cisplatin. RESULTS: Genomic-derived signatures of cisplatin and pemetrexed sensitivity were shown to accurately predict sensitivity in vitro and, in the case of cisplatin, to predict treatment response in patients treated with cisplatin. The accuracy of the cisplatin predictor, based on available clinical data, was 83.1% (sensitivity, 100%; specificity 57%; positive predictive value, 78%; negative predictive value, 100%). Interestingly, an inverse correlation was seen between in vitro cisplatin and pemetrexed sensitivity, and importantly, between the likelihood of cisplatin and pemetrexed response in patients. CONCLUSION: The use of genomic predictors of response to cisplatin and pemetrexed can be incorporated into strategies to optimize therapy for advanced solid tumors.