Molecular Differences between Screen-Detected and Interval Breast Cancers Are Largely Explained by PAM50 Subtypes

Purpose: Interval breast cancer is of clinical interest, as it exhibits an aggressive phenotype and evades detection by screening mammography. A comprehensive picture of somatic changes that drive tumors to become symptomatic in the screening interval can improve understanding of the biology underlying these aggressive tumors. Experimental Design: Initiated in April 2013, Clinical Sequencing of Cancer in Sweden (Clinseq) is a scientific and clinical platform for the genomic profiling of cancer. The breast cancer pilot study consisted of women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2001 and 2012 in the Stockholm/Gotland regions. A subset of 307 breast tumors was successfully sequenced, of which 113 were screen-detected and 60 were interval cancers. We applied targeted deep sequencing of cancer-related genes; low-pass, whole-genome sequencing; and RNA sequencing technology to characterize somatic differences in the genomic and transcriptomic architecture by interval cancer status. Mammographic density and PAM50 molecular subtypes were considered. Results: In the univariate analyses, TP53, PPP1R3A, and KMT2B were significantly more frequently mutated in interval cancers than in screen-detected cancers. Acquired somatic copy number aberrations with a frequency difference of at least 15% between the two groups included gains in 17q23-q25.3 and losses in 16q24.2. Gene expression analysis identified 447 significantly differentially expressed genes, of which 120 were replicated in an independent microarray dataset. After adjusting for PAM50, most differences were no longer significant. Conclusions: Molecular differences by interval cancer status were observed, but they were largely explained by PAM50 subtypes. This work offers new insights into the biological differences between the two tumor groups. Clin Cancer Res; 23(10); 2584–92. ©2016 AACR.

[1]  A. Nobel,et al.  Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  Christer Larsson,et al.  Correction: Endothelial ALK1 Is a Therapeutic Target to Block Metastatic Dissemination of Breast Cancer. , 2016, Cancer research.

[3]  H. Friess,et al.  Cloning of a gene highly overexpressed in cancer coding for a novel KH-domain containing protein , 1997, Oncogene.

[4]  L. Tabár,et al.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial. , 1987, British Journal of Cancer.

[5]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[6]  B. Rush,et al.  Interval breast cancer: a more aggressive subset of breast neoplasias. , 1983, Surgery.

[7]  Maria Sala,et al.  Phenotypic characterization and risk factors for interval breast cancers in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona, Spain , 2010, Cancer Causes & Control.

[8]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  Yali Dou,et al.  Hijacked in cancer: the KMT2 (MLL) family of methyltransferases , 2015, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[10]  T. Urano,et al.  PPP1R3 gene (protein phosphatase 1) alterations in colorectal cancer and its relationship to metastasis. , 2005, Oncology reports.

[11]  A. Børresen-Dale,et al.  The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer , 2012, Nature.

[12]  G. Svane,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening Program in Stockholm County, Sweden – Aspects of Organization and Quality Assurance , 2010, Breast Care.

[13]  Jingmei Li,et al.  Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Benjamin J. Raphael,et al.  Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types , 2013, Nature.

[15]  S. Mook,et al.  Independent prognostic value of screen detection in invasive breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[16]  A. Ashworth,et al.  Loss of 16q in high grade breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor status: Evidence for progression in tumors with a luminal phenotype? , 2009, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[17]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors , 2012, Nature.

[19]  P. Hall,et al.  Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[20]  P. Hall,et al.  Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Jingmei Li,et al.  High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[23]  Aleix Prat Aparicio Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2012 .

[24]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[25]  D. Rayson,et al.  Comparison of clinical-pathologic characteristics and outcomes of true interval and screen-detected invasive breast cancer among participants of a Canadian breast screening program: a nested case-control study. , 2011, Clinical breast cancer.

[26]  X. Castells,et al.  Gene Expression Profiling in True Interval Breast Cancer Reveals Overactivation of the mTOR Signaling Pathway , 2013, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[27]  J. Machiels,et al.  Identification by array comparative genomic hybridization of a new amplicon on chromosome 17q highly recurrent in BRCA1 mutated triple negative breast cancer , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[28]  J. Palazzo,et al.  IMP3, a Proposed Novel Basal Phenotype Marker, is Commonly Overexpressed in Adenoid Cystic Carcinomas but not in Apocrine Carcinomas of the Breast , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[29]  Yu Shen,et al.  Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  Charles M. Perou,et al.  Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Risk Factors to Potential Targets , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[31]  M. Ringnér,et al.  Genomic subtypes of breast cancer identified by array-comparative genomic hybridization display distinct molecular and clinical characteristics , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[32]  S. Dhanasekaran,et al.  Targeting the MLL complex in castration resistant prostate cancer , 2015, Nature Medicine.

[33]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  K. Czene,et al.  Abstract P6-06-17: Gene signature model predicts metastatic onset better than standard clinical markers – Nested case-control design uniquely enables enrichment for biologically relevant features , 2013 .