Genomic and clinical landscape of metastatic hormone receptors-positive breast cancers carrying ESR1 alterations

L. Boscolo Bielo,E. Guerini Rocco,D. Trapani,P. Zagami,B. Taurelli Salimbeni,A. Esposito,C. Belli,E. Crimini,K. Venetis,E. Munzone,N. Fusco,C. Criscitiello,A. Marra,G. Curigliano
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103731
IF: 6.883
2024-10-03
ESMO Open
Abstract:Highlights • Distinct genomic mechanisms promote endocrine resistance among ESR1-mutant and ESR1 wild-type ER+/HER2− breast cancer. • ESR1-mutant ER+/HER2− breast cancer displays peculiar genetic landscape and genomic signatures. • Potentially actionable genetic alterations are differently distributed according to the presence of ESR1 alterations. • ER+/HER2− breast cancer carrying ESR1 p.E380Q might be particularly susceptible to the use of immunotherapy. Background Somatic genetic alterations of the estrogen receptor 1 gene ( ESR1 ) are enriched in endocrine therapy-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Herein, we investigated and compared the clinical and genomic landscape of ESR1 -mutant ( ESR1 MUT ) and ESR1 wild type ( ESR1 WT ) ER+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)− mBCs. Methods Clinical and genomic data were retrieved from cBioPortal using the publicly-available MSK MetTropism dataset. Metastatic, ER+/HER2− mBC samples were included in the analysis. Only oncogenic and likely oncogenic alterations according to OncoKB were included. Statistical analyses were carried out using alpha level of 0.05, with a false discovery rate threshold of 10% for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Results Among 679 samples, 136 ESR1 MUT among 131 tumors were found (19.2%). The frequency of ESR1 MUT was higher in ductal versus lobular mBC (21.2% versus 13.8%, P = 0.052) and enriched in liver metastasis compared with other sites (22.5% versus 12.7%; q = 0.02). Compared with ESR1 WT mBC, ESR1 MUT tumors showed higher fraction of genome altered (FGA) {[0.28 interquartile range (IQR), 0.15-0.43] versus 0.22 (0.11-0.38); P  = 0.04} and tumor mutational burden (TMB) [4.89 (IQR 3.46-6.85) versus 3.92 (2.59-6.05) mut/Mb; P  = 0.001]. Tumors harboring p.E380X alterations showed higher TMB compared with those with H11-12 alterations [8.24 (IQR 5.06-15.3) versus 4.89 (IQR 3.46-6.75) mut/Mb ; P  = 0.01]. Genetic alterations of TP53 were enriched in ESR1 WT tumors (36% versus 14%) [odds ratio (OR) 3.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-5.64, q  = 0.001]. Considering signaling pathways, ESR1 MUT tumors showed a lower occurrence of TP53 (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.74; q  = 0.003) and MAPK (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.65; q  = 0.009) alterations. TP53 ( q < 0.001), CDH1 ( q < 0.001), and ERBB2 ( q < 0.001) demonstrated mutual exclusivity with ESR1 MUT . Conclusions ER+/HER2− mBCs carrying ESR1 MUT exhibit a divergent genomic background, characterized by a lower prevalence of TP53 and MAPK pathway alterations. Less common ESR1 alterations falling outside the H11-H12 region seem to occur in tumors with higher TMB, deserving further investigation to understand their potential actionability.
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?