Longitudinal profiling identifies co-occurring BRCA1/2 reversions, TP53BP1, RIF1 and PAXIP1 mutations in PARP inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to therapies that target homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in breast cancer limits their overall effectiveness. Multiple, preclinically validated, mechanisms of resistance have been proposed, but their existence and relative frequency in clinical disease are unclear, as is how to target resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Longitudinal mutation and methylation profiling of circulating tumour (ct)DNA was carried out in 47 patients with metastatic BRCA1-, BRCA2- or PALB2-mutant breast cancer treated with HRD-targeted therapy who developed progressive disease-18 patients had primary resistance and 29 exhibited response followed by resistance. ctDNA isolated at multiple time points in the patient treatment course (before, on-treatment and at progression) was sequenced using a novel >750-gene intron/exon targeted sequencing panel. Where available, matched tumour biopsies were whole exome and RNA sequenced and also used to assess nuclear RAD51. RESULTS: BRCA1/2 reversion mutations were present in 60% of patients and were the most prevalent form of resistance. In 10 cases, reversions were detected in ctDNA before clinical progression. Two new reversion-based mechanisms were identified: (i) intragenic BRCA1/2 deletions with intronic breakpoints; and (ii) intragenic BRCA1/2 secondary mutations that formed novel splice acceptor sites, the latter being confirmed by in vitro minigene reporter assays. When seen before commencing subsequent treatment, reversions were associated with significantly shorter time to progression. Tumours with reversions retained HRD mutational signatures but had functional homologous recombination based on RAD51 status. Although less frequent than reversions, nonreversion mechanisms [loss-of-function (LoF) mutations in TP53BP1, RIF1 or PAXIP1] were evident in patients with acquired resistance and occasionally coexisted with reversions, challenging the notion that singular resistance mechanisms emerge in each patient. CONCLUSIONS: These observations map the prevalence of candidate drivers of resistance across time in a clinical setting, information with implications for clinical management and trial design in HRD breast cancers.

Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers. DESIGN: Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials. RESULTS: At the imaging level, magnetic resonance imaging-based and novel positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in the adjuvant setting and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than in NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC. CONCLUSION: ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST.