Open Access

The BRCA1ness signature is associated significantly with response to PARP inhibitor treatment versus control in the I-SPY 2 randomized neoadjuvant setting

  • Tesa M. Severson1,
  • Denise M. Wolf2,
  • Christina Yau2,
  • Justine Peeters3,
  • Diederik Wehkam3,
  • Philip C. Schouten1,
  • Suet-Feung Chin4,
  • Ian J. Majewski5, 6,
  • Magali Michaut5,
  • Astrid Bosma5,
  • Bernard Pereira4,
  • Tycho Bismeijer5,
  • Lodewyk Wessels5, 7,
  • Carlos Caldas4,
  • René Bernards5,
  • Iris M. Simon3,
  • Annuska M. Glas3,
  • Sabine Linn1, 8, 9Email author and
  • Laura van ‘t Veer3
Contributed equally
Breast Cancer Research201719:99

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0861-2

Received: 27 March 2017

Accepted: 25 May 2017

Published: 25 August 2017

Abstract

Background

Patients with BRCA1-like tumors correlate with improved response to DNA double-strand break-inducing therapy. A gene expression-based classifier was developed to distinguish between BRCA1-like and non-BRCA1-like tumors. We hypothesized that these tumors may also be more sensitive to PARP inhibitors than standard treatments.

Methods

A diagnostic gene expression signature (BRCA1ness) was developed using a centroid model with 128 triple-negative breast cancer samples from the EU FP7 RATHER project. This BRCA1ness signature was then tested in HER2-negative patients (n = 116) from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL who received an oral PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V-C), or standard chemotherapy alone. We assessed the association between BRCA1ness and pathologic complete response in the V-C and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and the relative performance between arms (biomarker × treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model and adjusting for hormone receptor status (HR).

Results

We developed a gene expression signature to identify BRCA1-like status. In the I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant setting the BRCA1ness signature associated significantly with response to V-C (p = 0.03), but not in the control arm (p = 0.45). We identified a significant interaction between BRCA1ness and V-C (p = 0.023) after correcting for HR.

Conclusions

A genomic-based BRCA1-like signature was successfully translated to an expression-based signature (BRC1Aness). In the I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant setting, we determined that the BRCA1ness signature is capable of predicting benefit of V-C added to standard chemotherapy compared to standard chemotherapy alone.

Trial registration

I-SPY 2 TRIAL beginning December 31, 2009: Neoadjuvant and Personalized Adaptive Novel Agents to Treat Breast Cancer (I-SPY 2), NCT01042379.

Keywords

Breast cancer Neoadjuvant BRCAness PARP inhibition Triple-negative breast cancer

Background

Histological subtype information in breast cancer is clinically relevant for treatment purposes but insufficient to describe all tumor heterogeneity [1]. The basal-like molecular subtype, which typically expresses cytokeratins 5/6 and EGFR, frequently overlaps with the histological subtype of triple-negative (TN) breast cancer [2, 3]. TN breast cancer is described by the absence of ERα/PR and HER2 expression and poor overall prognosis [4, 5]. Because of the lack of available targeted therapies for this subtype, the clinical impact of target discovery for patients with TN breast cancer is potentially significant.

Hereditary germline BRCA1 mutations are found in around 12% of all TN breast cancers [68]. BRCA1 plays a critical role in error-free DNA double-strand break repair via homologous recombination, and deficiency can result in genomic instability [9, 10]. Differential gene expression patterns in BRCA1 mutant tumors versus nonmutant tumors have been identified previously [1114]. Because of the relative rarity of BRCA1 mutation in the general breast cancer population [15], however, these studies are often underpowered, making clinical impact for mutation carriers limited. Furthermore, the capacity of these signatures to predict response to targeted treatments such as PARP inhibitors has not been thoroughly explored in the randomized clinical trial setting.

BRCA1-mutated/promoter-methylated TN tumors with a specific pattern of copy number alterations are termed BRCA1-like [1620]. ‘BRCAness’ describes tumors with molecular features of BRCA1-mutated tumors [21, 22]. Interestingly, the whole group of BRCA1-like tumors responds well to DNA double-strand break-inducing agents and intensifying chemotherapy regardless of their BRCA1 mutation/promoter methylation status [16, 23, 24]. These findings suggest that a relatively large portion of TN breast cancers may be susceptible to targeted therapies such as PARP inhibitors. The efforts of many groups have resulted in various classifiers for BRCAness, typically based on mutation [13, 14, 25] or homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) markers [26] and using gene expression data as an input. Recent work has found that an assay designed to detect BRCAness using HRD as a biomarker failed to predict for carboplatin response [27], illustrating the challenges of generating a signature with the capacity to predict treatment effect [28].

Molecular subgroups within the TN subtype have differential benefit from therapies [2931]. In addition, previous work in TN tumors has determined that differentially expressed genes between BRCA1-like and non-BRCA1-like tumors center around DNA repair [29, 32, 33] and may lead to new information for clinical therapeutic decisions. A test based on gene expression levels may also lead to insight into the mechanisms which result in tumors with BRCA1-like features. We developed a 77-gene signature to identify samples with a BRCA1-like gene expression pattern we term BRCA1ness with a sensitivity and specificity of 96.7% and 73.1%, respectively. We explored this signature’s ability to predict response to the PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V-C) in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, a phase 2, multicenter, adaptively randomized trial designed to screen multiple experimental regimens in combination with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, where V-C graduated in the TN signature [3436]. Investigation of the BRCA1ness signature was part of a further evaluation of additional biomarkers in this setting. In this study, we aimed to answer the clinical question in the I-SPY 2 external validation set of whether to treat with PARP inhibition based on the well-studied mechanism of HRD (identified by our biomarker BRCA1ness).

Methods

Discovery set patient characterization and microarray data generation

The collaborative European Union-funded effort FP7 RATHER project (Rational Therapy for Breast Cancer) aims to integrate gene expression profiling, copy number variation, kinome variation and kinase activation status in an effort to identify new targets for therapy of difficult-to-treat breast cancer subtypes, including TN breast cancer (www.ratherproject.com). The RATHER project retrospectively identified 128 TN breast cancer patients with long-term follow-up in total: 70 from Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands and 58 from Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK.

The primary inclusion criterion for the RATHER cohort was availability of sufficient isolated frozen RNA tissue in the tissue bank and diagnostic information indicative of TN breast cancer. We enriched for frozen tumors with 30% or greater tumor content (2 x 8-μm serial sections, hematoxylin and eosin stained). The local medical ethics authorities of both centers approved the collection protocols. Sectioning of tumor tissue and RNA isolation were performed as described previously [37].

Samples with RIN value > 5 according to 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies) assessment were selected for further analysis. Gene expression data were generated as described previously [37]. Briefly, feature signal intensities were processed and extracted using the ‘limma’ R package with background subtraction using an offset of 10 and log2 transformed data. Probe intensities were quantile normalized with in-house R scripts and missing values (including probes with signal intensities < 1 after preprocessing) were imputed by the 10 nearest-neighbor method. A biobank batch effect was adjusted using ComBat [38]. Genes with multiple probes were summarized by the first principal component of a correlating subset.

BRCA1-like classification

The multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) method was used to generate copy number profiles for the determination of the BRCA1-like status of the tumors. The assay was performed, fragments analyzed and data normalized according to the manufacturer’s protocol (MRC-Holland). Class prediction (BRCA1-like/non-BRCA1-like) was carried out on the normalized data according to published instructions [16].

Gene signature development

Signature development was performed using Partek Genomics Suite (partek.com) (categorical signature) and Matlab (https://mathworks.com/) (translation to continuous score) on 128 samples. Top variable genes (variance >1 across all samples) were used for the model input (N = 2049). The classification model of diagonal linear discriminant analysis (DLDA) with equal prior probabilities was run to select the signature genes. Groups of genes ranked by their significance in a univariate ANOVA examining the BRCA1-like/non-BRCA1-like MLPA status were tested (groups from 1 to 100, in increments of 1). Single-level leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) with the maximum number of partitions was used to internally validate and calculate the performance of the model.

The significant number of genes in the model (n = 77, Additional file 1: Table S1) was selected based on the ROC area under the curve (AUC as specified by Partek). After the model is run, each sample is allocated a posterior probability for each class (BRCA1-like and non-BRCA1-like) and the sample is assigned to the class with the highest posterior probability (BRCA1ness). This categorical signature was then transferred to the diagnostic setting to better comply with quality and regulatory requirements using a nearest centroid model; a robust method with both reasonable and favorable characteristics for many measurements on a modest amount of patients [39]. Briefly, raw full genome data were normalized and class centroids were calculated (median per gene) for each of the 77 genes for each class (BRCA1ness/non-BRCA1ness) using the discovery set. These calculated centroids were used as the template for BRCA1ness/non-BRCA1ness. Pearson correlations of each new sample with the BRCA1ness/non-BRCA1ness templates were calculated (Additional file 1: Table S1) and combined into a single continuous score by subtracting the correlation to the non-BRC1Aness template from the correlation to the BRC1Aness template. In order for a sample to be classified as BRCA1ness, a threshold was established with a high sensitivity while preserving specificity close to 0.75. The classification threshold was set at –0.3; that is, a sample with a BRCA1ness score > –0.3 was classified as BRCA1ness and a sample with a score < –0.3 was classified as non-BRCA1ness.

I-SPY 2 TRIAL

The I-SPY 2 TRIAL is a standing multicenter, phase 2 platform trial to screen experimental regimens in combination with standard chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Patients are adaptively randomized into one of four experimental arms or a control arm (Fig. 1) [35]. In this portion of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, eligible patients received weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 (T) i.v. for 12 doses alone (control), or in combination with an experimental regimen. Patients randomized to V-C received 50 mg of veliparib by mouth twice daily for 12 weeks and carboplatin at AUC 6 on weeks 1, 4, 7 and 10 concurrent with weekly paclitaxel. Following paclitaxel ± V-C, all patients received doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 (AC) i.v. every 2–3 weeks for four doses with myeloid growth factor support as appropriate per protocol followed by surgery that included axillary node sampling. The V-C arm was open to HER2-negative patients; and was graduated in the TN group. The BRCA1ness signature was one of the qualifying dichotomous biomarkers assessed as a predictor of response to V-C relative to standard chemotherapy.
Fig. 1

CONSORT diagram. CONSORT diagram indicating how patients were randomized for the I-SPY 2 TRIAL

To assess the BRCA1ness signature in this validation set as a specific biomarker of V-C response, gene expression data from 116 HER2-negative patients (V-C, n = 72 and concurrent controls, n = 44) were analyzed. A Customized Agilent 44 K array (Agendia) was used to evaluate the 77-gene signature BRCA1ness classification. The association between BRCA1ness classification and response in the V-C and control arms alone was assessed using Fisher’s exact test, and the relative performance between arms (biomarker × treatment interaction, likelihood ratio test) using a logistic model. We included adjustment for hormone receptor status (HR/TN) and tumor size in our model. Our sample size is small, and thus statistical calculations (p values) are descriptive rather than inferential. This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers evaluated in the trial but outside this study.

Results

Signature development

We developed a BRCA1ness signature using whole genome gene expression data. The signature has been developed on fresh frozen (FF) breast tumors that were categorized as either BRCA1-like or non-BRCA1-like using a DNA copy number MLPA-based classifier [16], and endeavors to predict BRCA1-like tumors with a high sensitivity/specificity rate.

Forty-eight percent of the tumors (61/128) in the discovery cohort were classified as BRCA1-like and the remainder was assigned to the non-BRCA1-like class. We employed the gene expression profiles of the tumors, DLDA and the labels assigned by the MLPA-based classifier to train a classifier that distinguishes between the two classes. Using the ROC area under the curve model (AUC) as the performance criterion we identified a 77-gene signature that resulted in the highest performance (Table 1).
Table 1

Sensitivity and specificity for detecting BRCA1-like status samples using BRCA1ness

 

MLPA BRCA1-like

MLPA non-BRCA1-like

BRCA1ness positive

59

18

BRCA1ness negative

2

49

 

Sensitivity

Specificity

96.7%

73.1%

MLPA multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification

Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the genes in the 77-gene signature indicates separation between the classes (Fig. 2). We transferred the signature to a diagnostic setting using a nearest centroid-based algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting BRCA1-like status as defined by MLPA were 96.7% and 73.1%, respectively. Using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (Qiagen) to identify key biological processes associated with the 77 genes in the BRCA1ness 77-gene signature, we found cellular assembly and control and DNA replication, recombination and repair to be among the top associated pathways and functions (Fig. 3a). In addition, we observed serine and glycine biosynthesis to be associated with the 77-gene signature genes, indicating that these genes may be responsible for reprogramming of metabolic processes, which can lead to tumor progression (Fig. 3a). Supporting the pathway and molecular function results, network analysis revealed a network centered upon cell the cycle control regulator cyclin A (Fig. 3b).
Fig. 2

Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of 77 genes in the 128 discovery set samples. The 77 genes were derived from a supervised analysis to identify those genes most informative in distinguishing BRCA1-like from non-BRCA1-like TN breast cancers [33]. Scaled expression value denoted as Z score (red–blue scale: red indicates high expression and blue indicates low expression). Information bar indicates MLPA BRCA1-like status: true (green) or false (brown). MLPA multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (Color figure online)

Fig. 3

The 77-gene signature network analysis. a Significant canonical pathways (top) and molecular functions (bottom). Negative log p value is on the x axis. b Network analysis of the 77 genes in the BRCA1ness signature. Grey shading indicates genes found in signature, solid lines show direct relationships between proteins and dashed lines show indirect relationships

I-SPY 2 TRIAL

The BRCA1ness signature was applied to 116 HER2-negative patients (V-C, n = 72 and concurrent controls, n = 44). Fifty-five patients were classified as BRCA1ness. Fourteen percent of these patients were hormone receptor-positive (ERα/PR) and HER2-negative. The distribution of pathological complete response (pCR) rates among BRCA1ness and non-BRCA1ness groups is shown in Fig. 4a [36] and Table 2. Association between the BRCA1ness classification and patient response was seen in the V-C arm (OR = 3.2, p = 0.03) but not in the control arm (OR = 0.39, p = 0.45) (Fig. 4b). A significant biomarker × treatment interaction (p = 0.025) was also observed. Although there is enrichment for TN samples in the BRCA1ness group in univariate analysis (Table 2), this interaction remains significant upon adjusting for HR (p = 0.023) (Fig. 4c).
Fig. 4

I-SPY 2 TRIAL. a Mosaic plot depicting the number of patients with pathological complete response (pCR) in each treatment group and signature group. Top row indicates patients in the trial enrolled in the control arm and bottom row indicates patients in the V-C arm. Number of patients with pCR is shown in green and number of patients without pCR is shown in tan. Black outlined boxes indicate the patients with a non-BRCA1ness status (left), red outlined boxes depict those with BRCA1ness status (right). b Histological subtype of the patients in the trial divided by treatment arm (V-C) and control arm and pCR rate per group. c Odds ratio (OR) and likelihood ratio test (LR) for treatment and control arms of the trial and the biomarker x treatment interaction test. HER2 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HR hormone receptor status, TN triple-negative, V/C veliparib-carboplatin (Color figure online)

Table 2

Patient characteristics

Variable

Non-BRCA1ness

BRCA1ness

p value

(N = 61)

(N = 55)

Treatment

 Control

27 (44.3)

17 (30.9)

0.198a

 Veliparib/carboplatin

34 (55.7)

38 (69.1

Hormone receptor status

 HR+

48 (78.7)

8 (14.5)

<0.05a

 TN

13 (21.3)

47 (85.5)

Tumor size (cm)

 0–1

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.496a

 >1–2

0 (0)

1 (1.8)

 >2–5

40 (65.6)

31 (56.4)

 >5

19 (31.4)

22 (40.0)

Data presented as number (%)

HR hormone receptor status, TN triple-negative

aPearson’s chi-squared test

In addition we found that the interaction also remains significant when adjusting for tumor size and HR (p = 0.038). We use the likelihood ratio test to formally demonstrate that the logistic regression with the addition of the HR (and tumor size) terms does not provide a better fit to the data. When the hormone receptor-positive BRCA1ness classified patients are added to the graduating TN subset, the OR associated with V-C is 4.03. This is comparable to that of the TN alone (OR = 4.04), while increasing the prevalence of ‘biomarker-positive’ predicted V-C sensitive patients by 8%.

Discussion

At around 15% of all breast cancers, the TN breast cancer subtype impacts a significant proportion of women [7, 40]. TN breast cancer tends to be aggressive independent of other known prognostic factors [5, 41]. Current guidelines indicate that standard therapy for TN breast cancer is chemotherapy [2]. Unfortunately, these tumors typically metastasize early despite therapy [5, 41]. This poor response to treatment may be due to the fact that the TN subtype itself is made of molecular subgroups. Conversely, molecular data from these subgroups may indicate a targeted therapy, which is likely to benefit patients.

Because of results in preclinical models, BRCA1 mutation carriers of multiple tumor types have been enrolled in clinical trials with PARP inhibitors [27, 32, 4244]. Currently, there are no other predictive biomarkers for PARP inhibitors other than the germline BRCA1 mutation status, and the issue with that biomarker is that it only captures a small subgroup of all patients that may benefit from carboplatin/veliparib [8]. Previous work has shown that genomic instability patterns are related to BRCA1 mutation/methylation and that these patterns can be used to classify tumors are BRCA1-like or non-BRCA1-like [1620, 24]. These BRCA1-like tumors make up a larger group than BRCA1 mutant or methylated alone, and importantly they respond well to DNA double-strand break-inducing chemotherapies [17, 23, 24]. We have developed a gene expression signature that is capable of identifying BRCA1-like samples with a high sensitivity/specificity rate (BRCA1ness).

Pathway analysis reveals that the genes in this signature are associated closely with cell cycle and cancer networks. We also observed a significant association with serine and glycine biosynthesis pathways with the genes of the signature. This is of particular interest because it has been recently shown that aerobic glycolysis signaling can promote tumor growth in breast cancer cell lines that are TN [45], indicating that the poor outcome for patients with a BRCA1ness tumor may be partially explained in this manner. Serine biosynthesis has been identified to be essential to tumorigenesis in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cell lines [46]. We identified serine biosynthesis to be related specifically to the genes found in the BRCA1ness gene expression signature, suggesting that tumors having BRCA1-like features may have particular vulnerabilities to drugs that interfere with serine biosynthesis. It would be interesting to test whether high expression of genes involved in serine and glycine biosynthesis can confer sensitivity to drugs which interfere with this biosynthesis in breast cancer cell lines. In addition, we found that the signature is capable of predicting response to the PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin compared with a control treatment regimen.

Conclusion

The sample size in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL is small, but our prespecified analysis suggests that the BRCA1ness signature shows promise for predicting response to V-C combination therapy relative to control. We focused on the experimental arm of the study that contains DNA-damaging agents because the BRCA1ness test is meant to identify patients that may derive substantial benefit from these agents. We observed a proportion of patients who were hormone receptor-positive that benefited from the V-C treatment. It is unlikely in a regular clinical setting that hormone receptor-positive patients would be tested for BRCA1ness, but our data indicate that these patients could derive benefit from specific tailored treatments like PARP inhibitors and/or platinum agents. Concurrently reported results studying carboplatin in TN breast cancer have indicated it may be difficult to translate the pCR rate to longer benefit such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) [4750]. It should be noted that, for this trial, we used a surrogate endpoint (pCR) for RFS and longer follow-up is required to investigate the BRCA1ness classifier in relation to long-term benefit. In the event that downsizing of the tumor is required to facilitate conversion from mastectomy to breast-conserving therapy, this classifier may already have value. If verified in a larger trial, this signature may contribute to the selection criteria of PARP inhibitor trials in the future.

Abbreviations

ANOVA: 

Analysis of variance

AUC: 

Area under the curve

DLDA: 

Diagonal linear discriminant analysis

EGFR: 

Epidermal growth factor

ERα: 

Estrogen receptor alpha

EU FP7: 

European Union 7th Framework Programme

FF: 

Fresh frozen

HER2: 

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

HR: 

Hormone receptor status

HRD: 

Homologous repair deficiency

I-SPY 2 TRIAL: 

Neoadjuvant and Personalized Adaptive Novel Agents to Treat Breast Cancer

LOOCV: 

Leave-one-out cross validation

MLPA: 

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification

NKI: 

Netherlands Cancer Institute

OR: 

Odds ratio

PARP: 

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase

pCR: 

Pathological complete response

PR: 

Progesterone receptor

RATHER: 

Rational Therapy for Breast Cancer

RIN: 

RNA integrity number

ROC: 

Receiver-operating characteristic

TN: 

Triple-negative

V-C: 

Veliparib–carboplatin

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all members of the RATHER Consortium: the collaborative European Union-funded effort FP7 RATHER project (Rational Therapy for Breast Cancer) (protect number: 258967) (www.ratherproject.com). They also thank all I-SPY 2 TRIAL investigators and participants. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the effort and support of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) Core Facility Molecular Pathology and Biobanking (CFMPB) for supplying NKI Biobank material and support. The authors are grateful to Dr Esther Lips for supplying important data for preliminary analyses.

Funding

This study was supported by the RATHER Consortium: the collaborative European Union-funded effort FP7 RATHER project (Rational Therapy for Breast Cancer) (protect number: 258967) (www.ratherproject.com) and I-SPY 2 TRIAL investigators (ispy2.org).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ongoing analyses but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TMS, DMW, CY, JP, SL and Lv'tV all conceived of and designed the study. TMS, JP, DW, IMS, AMG and SL developed the BRCA1ness signature. PCS, S-FC, IJM, MM, BP and TB performed experiments and analyses on the validation set. DMW, CY, and Lv'tV analyzed I-SPY 2 TRIAL data.. LW, CC, RB, AMG, IMS, SL and Lv‘tV provided support and supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients for the I-SPY 2 clinical trial provided written informed consent. All participating sites received institutional review board approval (Additional file 2: Table S2).

Competing interests

SL, TMS, IMS and JP are all named coinventors on a patent application for a BRCAness gene expression classifier. PCS has a close relative employed by Astra-Zeneca. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

All authors consent to publication.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute
(2)
University of California
(3)
Agendia NV
(4)
CRUK Cambridge Institute
(5)
Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, Netherlands Cancer Institute
(6)
Current address: Division of Cancer and Haematology, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
(7)
Faculty of EEMCS, Delft University of Technology
(8)
Division Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute
(9)
Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht

References

  1. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin S-F, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature. 2012;486(7403):346–52.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Linn SC, van ‘t Veer LJ. Clinical relevance of the triple-negative breast cancer concept: genetic basis and clinical utility of the concept. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990. 2009;45 Suppl 1:11–26.Google Scholar
  3. Prat A, Adamo B, Cheang MCU, Anders CK, Carey LA, Perou CM. Molecular characterization of basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancer. Oncologist. 2013;18(2):123–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2004;10(16):5367–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 2010;7(5):e1000279.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins LC, Martyniak A, Kandel MJ, Stadler ZK, Masciari S, Miron A, et al. Basal cytokeratin and epidermal growth factor receptor expression are not predictive of BRCA1 mutation status in women with triple-negative breast cancers. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(7):1093–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, Bégin LR, Goffin JR, Wong N, et al. Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(19):1482–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hartman A-R, Kaldate RR, Sailer LM, Painter L, Grier CE, Endsley RR, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(11):2787–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouwman P, Jonkers J. The effects of deregulated DNA damage signalling on cancer chemotherapy response and resistance. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(9):587–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moynahan ME, Chiu JW, Koller BH, Jasin M. Brca1 controls homology-directed DNA repair. Mol Cell. 1999;4(4):511–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedenfalk I, Duggan D, Chen Y, Radmacher M, Bittner M, Simon R, et al. Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(8):539–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jönsson G, Naylor TL, Vallon-Christersson J, Staaf J, Huang J, Ward MR, et al. Distinct genomic profiles in hereditary breast tumors identified by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Res. 2005;65(17):7612–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AAM, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415(6871):530–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsen MJ, Kruse TA, Tan Q, Lænkholm A-V, Bak M, Lykkesfeldt AE, et al. Classifications within molecular subtypes enables identification of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers by RNA tumor profiling. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64268.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Pereira B, Chin S-F, Rueda OM, Vollan H-KM, Provenzano E, Bardwell HA, et al. The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refines their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11479.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Lips EH, Laddach N, Savola SP, Vollebergh MA, Oonk AMM, Imholz ALT, et al. Quantitative copy number analysis by Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) of BRCA1-associated breast cancer regions identifies BRCAness. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(5):R107.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lips EH, Mulder L, Hannemann J, Laddach N, Vrancken Peeters MTFD, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Indicators of homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer and association with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(4):870–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Vollebergh MA, Jonkers J, Linn SC. Genomic instability in breast and ovarian cancers: translation into clinical predictive biomarkers. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012;69(2):223–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schouten PC, van Dyk E, Braaf LM, Mulder L, Lips EH, de Ronde JJ, et al. Platform comparisons for identification of breast cancers with a BRCA-like copy number profile. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(2):317–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wessels LFA, van Welsem T, Hart AAM, van’t Veer LJ, Reinders MJT, Nederlof PM. Molecular classification of breast carcinomas by comparative genomic hybridization: a specific somatic genetic profile for BRCA1 tumors. Cancer Res. 2002;62(23):7110–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. BRCAness revisited. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(2):110–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of “BRCAness” in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(10):814–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schouten PC, Marmé F, Aulmann S, Sinn H-P, van Essen HF, Ylstra B, et al. Breast cancers with a BRCA1-like DNA copy number profile recur less often than expected after high-dose alkylating chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(4):763–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vollebergh MA, Lips EH, Nederlof PM, Wessels LFA, Schmidt MK, van Beers EH, et al. An aCGH classifier derived from BRCA1-mutated breast cancer and benefit of high-dose platinum-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1561–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Konstantinopoulos PA, Spentzos D, Karlan BY, Taniguchi T, Fountzilas E, Francoeur N, et al. Gene expression profile of BRCAness that correlates with responsiveness to chemotherapy and with outcome in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(22):3555–61.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Peng G, Chun-Jen Lin C, Mo W, Dai H, Park Y-Y, Kim SM, et al. Genome-wide transcriptome profiling of homologous recombination DNA repair. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3361.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Tutt A, Ellis P, Kilburn L, Gilett C, Pinder S, Abraham J, et al. [S3-01] The TNT trial: a randomized phase III trial of carboplatin (C) compared with docetaxel (D) for patients with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced triple negative or BRCA1/2 breast cancer (CRUK/07/012). Cancer Res. 2015;75(9 Supplement):S3-01-S3-01.Google Scholar
  28. Schouten PC, Linn SC. Challenges in the use of DNA repair deficiency as a biomarker in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(17):1867–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(7):2750–67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5533–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Yu K-D, Zhu R, Zhan M, Rodriguez AA, Yang W, Wong S, et al. Identification of prognosis-relevant subgroups in patients with chemoresistant triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(10):2723–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt ANJ, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434(7035):917–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Severson TM, Peeters J, Majewski I, Michaut M, Bosma A, Schouten PC, et al. BRCA1-like signature in triple negative breast cancer: molecular and clinical characterization reveals subgroups with therapeutic potential. Mol Oncol. 2015;8(7):1528–38.Google Scholar
  34. Park JW, Liu MC, Yee D, Yau C, van’t Veer LJ, Symmans WF, et al. Adaptive randomization of neratinib in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):11–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Rugo HS, Olopade OI, DeMichele A, Yau C, van ‘t Veer LJ, Buxton MB, et al. Adaptive randomization of veliparib-carboplatin treatment in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):23–34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolf DM, Yau C, Sanil A, Glas A, Petricoin C, Wulfkuhle J, et al. DNA repair deficiency biomarkers and the 70-gene ultra-high risk signature as predictors of veliparib/carboplatin response in the I-SPY 2 breast cancer trial. NPJ Breast Cancer (2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0025-7
  37. Michaut M, Chin S-F, Majewski I, Severson TM, Bismeijer T, de Koning L, et al. Integration of genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data identifies two biologically distinct subtypes of invasive lobular breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2016;6:18517.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson WE, Li C, Rabinovic A. Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostat Oxf Engl. 2007;8(1):118–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Glas AM, Floore A, Delahaye LJMJ, Witteveen AT, Pover RCF, Bakx N, et al. Converting a breast cancer microarray signature into a high-throughput diagnostic test. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:278.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Criscitiello C, Azim Jr HA, Schouten PC, Linn SC, Sotiriou C. Understanding the biology of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23 Suppl 6:vi13–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hudis CA, Gianni L. Triple-negative breast cancer: an unmet medical need. Oncologist. 2011;16 Suppl 1:1–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, Tutt A, Wu P, Mergui-Roelvink M, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):123–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee J-M, Ledermann JA, Kohn EC. PARP Inhibitors for BRCA1/2 mutation-associated and BRCA-like malignancies. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(1):32–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE, Domchek SM, Audeh MW, Weitzel JN, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9737):235–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lim S-O, Li C-W, Xia W, Lee H-H, Chang S-S, Shen J, et al. EGFR signaling enhances aerobic glycolysis in triple-negative breast cancer cells to promote tumor growth and immune escape. Cancer Res. 2016;76(5):1284–96.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Possemato R, Marks KM, Shaul YD, Pacold ME, Kim D, Birsoy K, et al. Functional genomics reveal that the serine synthesis pathway is essential in breast cancer. Nature. 2011;476(7360):346–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S, Salat C, Denkert C, Rezai M, et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):747–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. von Minckwitz G, Loibl S, Schneeweiss A, Salat C, Rezai M, Zahm DM, et al. Early survival analysis of the randomized phase II trial investigating the addition of carboplatin to neoadjuvant therapy for triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto). Cancer Res. 2016;76(4 Supplement):S2-04-S2-04.Google Scholar
  49. Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, Singh B, Cirrincione CT, Tolaney SM, et al. Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):13–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, Singh B, Cirrincione CT, Tolaney SM, et al. Event-free and overall survival following neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel and dose-dense AC +/– carboplatin and/or bevacizumab in triple-negative breast cancer: outcomes from CALGB 40603 (Alliance). Cancer Res. 2016;76(4 Supplement):S2-05-S2-05.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement