BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with breast, ovarian and prostate cancer demonstrate a different pattern of metastatic disease compared with non-carriers: results from a rapid autopsy programme.

AIM: To catalogue and compare the pattern of metastatic disease in germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation carriers and non-carriers with breast, ovarian and prostate cancer from a rapid autopsy programme. METHODS AND RESULTS: The number of metastases in the major body systems and the proportion of participants with metastases were documented in 50 participants (19 germline mutation carriers). Analysis was conducted on the participants' pattern of disease for the different cancers and mutation subgroups. The four commonly affected organ systems were the digestive (liver only) (82%), respiratory (76%), gastrointestinal (65%) and reticuloendothelial (42%). There were significant differences in the pattern of metastatic breast cancer in BRCA1/2 germline carriers compared with non-carriers. Breast cancer carriers had significantly fewer organ systems involved (median n = 3, range = 1-3) compared with non-carriers (median n = 9, range = 1-7) (P = 0.03). BRCA1/2 carriers with ovarian carcinomas had significantly more organ systems with metastatic carcinoma (median n = 10, range = 3-8) than non-carriers (median n = 5, range = 3-5) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the number of involved systems in BRCA2 carriers compared with non-carriers with prostate cancer (P = 1.0). There was an absence of locoregional disease (6.5%) compared with distant disease (93.5%) among the three cancer subtypes (P < 0.001). The majority of metastatic deposits (97%) collected during the autopsy were identified by recent diagnostic imaging. CONCLUSION: Even though a major limitation of this study is that our numbers are small, especially in the breast cancer carrier group, the metastatic patterns of breast and ovarian cancers may be impacted by BRCA1/2 carrier status, suggesting that tumours derived from patients with these mutations use different mechanisms of dissemination. The findings may focus clinical diagnostic imaging for monitoring metastases where whole-body imaging resources are scant.

Clinical implications of prospective genomic profiling of metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer remains incurable. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) offers the ability to identify actionable genomic alterations in tumours which may then be matched with targeted therapies, but the implementation and utility of this approach is not well defined for patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We recruited patients with advanced breast cancer of any subtype for prospective targeted NGS of their most recent tumour samples, using a panel of 108 breast cancer-specific genes. Genes were classified as actionable or non-actionable using the European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines. RESULTS: Between February 2014 and May 2019, 322 patients were enrolled onto the study, with 72% (n = 234) of patients successfully sequenced (n = 357 samples). The majority (74%, n = 171) of sequenced patients were found to carry a potentially actionable alteration, the most common being a PIK3CA mutation. Forty-three percent (n = 74) of patients with actionable alterations were referred for a clinical trial or referred for confirmatory germline testing or had a change in therapy outside of clinical trials. We found alterations in AKT1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ESR1, FGFR1, KMT2C, NCOR1, PIK3CA and TSC2 to be significantly enriched in our metastatic population compared with primary breast cancers. Concordance between primary and metastatic samples for key driver genes (TP53, ERBB2 amplification) was > 75%. Additionally, we found that patients with a higher number of mutations had a significantly worse overall survival. CONCLUSION: Genomic profiling of patients with metastatic breast cancer can have clinical implications and should be considered in all suitable patients.

Circulating tumour DNA in metastatic breast cancer to guide clinical trial enrolment and precision oncology: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a heterogenous disease with increasing availability of targeted therapies as well as emerging genomic markers of therapeutic resistance, necessitating timely and accurate molecular characterization of disease. As a minimally invasive test, analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is well positioned for real-time genomic profiling to guide treatment decisions. Here, we report the results of a prospective testing program established to assess the feasibility of ctDNA analysis to guide clinical management of mBC patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two hundred thirty-four mBC patients (median age 54 years) were enrolled between June 2015 and October 2018 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Median follow-up was 15 months (range 1-46). All patient samples at the time of enrolment were analysed in real time for the presence of somatic mutations. Longitudinal plasma testing during the course of patient management was also undertaken in a subset of patients (n = 67, 28.6%), according to clinician preference, for repeated molecular profiling or disease monitoring. Detection of somatic mutations from patient plasma was performed using a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) approach to identify hotspot mutations in PIK3CA, ESR1, ERBB2, and AKT1. In parallel, subsets of samples were also analysed via next-generation sequencing (targeted panel sequencing and low-coverage whole-genome sequencing [LC-WGS]). The sensitivity of ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing to identify actionable mutations was compared. Results were discussed at a multidisciplinary breast cancer meeting prior to treatment decisions. ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing identified at least 1 actionable mutation at baseline in 80/234 (34.2%) and 62/159 (39.0%) of patients tested, respectively. Combined, both methods detected an actionable alteration in 104/234 patients (44.4%) through baseline or serial ctDNA testing. LC-WGS was performed on 27 patients from the cohort, uncovering several recurrently amplified regions including 11q13.3 encompassing CCND1. Increasing ctDNA levels were associated with inferior overall survival, whether assessed by ddPCR, targeted sequencing, or LC-WGS. Overall, the ctDNA results changed clinical management in 40 patients including the direct recruitment of 20 patients to clinical trials. Limitations of the study were that it was conducted at a single site and that 31.3% of participants were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: In this study, we found prospective ctDNA testing to be a practical and feasible approach that can guide clinical trial enrolment and patient management in mBC.

Alpelisib Monotherapy for PI3K-Altered, Pretreated Advanced Breast Cancer: A Phase II Study.

There is limited knowledge on the benefit of the α-subunit-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in later lines of therapy for advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) HER2- and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We conducted a phase II multicohort study of alpelisib monotherapy in patients with advanced PI3K pathway mutant ER+HER2- and TNBC. In the intention-to-treat ER+ cohort, the overall response rate was 30% and the clinical benefit rate was 36%. A decline in PI3K pathway mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels from baseline to week 8 while on therapy was significantly associated with a partial response, clinical benefit, and improved progression-free-survival [HR 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.083-0.67, P = 0.0065]. Detection of ESR1 mutations at baseline in plasma was also associated with clinical benefit and improved progression-free survival (HR 0.22; 95% CI, 0.078-0.60, P = 0.003). SIGNIFICANCE: Alpelisib monotherapy displayed efficacy in heavily pretreated ER+ breast cancer with PIK3CA mutations. PIK3CA mutation dynamics in plasma during treatment and ESR1 mutations detected in plasma at baseline were candidate biomarkers predictive of benefit from alpelisib, highlighting the utility of ctDNA assays in this setting. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2007.