Unravelling triple-negative breast cancer molecular heterogeneity using an integrative multiomic analysis

Abstract Background Recent efforts of genome-wide gene expression profiling analyses have improved our understanding of the biological complexity and diversity of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) reporting, at least six different molecular subtypes of TNBC namely Basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) and luminal androgen receptor (LAR). However, little is known regarding the potential driving molecular events within each subtype, their difference in survival and response to therapy. Further insight into the underlying genomic alterations is therefore needed. Patients and methods This study was carried out using copy-number aberrations, somatic mutations and gene expression data derived from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas. TNBC samples (n = 550) were classified according to Lehmann’s molecular subtypes using the TNBCtype online subtyping tool (http://cbc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tnbc/). Results Each subtype showed significant clinic-pathological characteristic differences. Using a multivariate model, IM subtype showed to be associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.68; CI = 0.46–0.99; P = 0.043) whereas LAR subtype was associated with a worst prognosis (HR = 1.47; CI = 1.0–2.14; P = 0.046). BL1 subtype was found to be most genomically instable subtype with high TP53 mutation (92%) and copy-number deletion in genes involved in DNA repair mechanism (BRCA2, MDM2, PTEN, RB1 and TP53). LAR tumours were associated with higher mutational burden with significantly enriched mutations in PI3KCA (55%), AKT1 (13%) and CDH1 (13%) genes. M and MSL subtypes were associated with higher signature score for angiogenesis. Finally, IM showed high expression levels of immune signatures and check-point inhibitor genes such as PD1, PDL1 and CTLA4. Conclusion Our findings highlight for the first time the substantial genomic heterogeneity that characterize TNBC molecular subtypes, allowing for a better understanding of the disease biology as well as the identification of several candidate targets paving novel approaches for the development of anticancer therapeutics for TNBC.

[1]  N. Rosenfeld,et al.  The somatic mutation profiles of 2,433 breast cancers refines their genomic and transcriptomic landscapes , 2016, Nature Communications.

[2]  Chun-Yu Liu,et al.  A comparison of the molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer among non-Asian and Taiwanese women , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[3]  Funda Meric-Bernstam,et al.  Differential Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Among 7 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.

[4]  Marc E. Lenburg,et al.  MYC pathway activation in triple-negative breast cancer is synthetic lethal with CDK inhibition , 2012, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[5]  M. Parmar,et al.  Adjuvant bevacizumab-containing therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BEATRICE): primary results of a randomised, phase 3 trial. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  Isabelle Salmon,et al.  CDK4 phosphorylation status and a linked gene expression profile predict sensitivity to palbociclib , 2017, EMBO molecular medicine.

[7]  D. Hanahan,et al.  Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation , 2011, Cell.

[8]  J. Pietenpol,et al.  Clinical implications of molecular heterogeneity in triple negative breast cancer. , 2015, Breast.

[9]  Gordon B Mills,et al.  Comprehensive Genomic Analysis Identifies Novel Subtypes and Targets of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[10]  Sarah J. Kurley,et al.  The spliceosome is a therapeutic vulnerability in MYC-driven cancer , 2015, Nature.

[11]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2013 .

[12]  X. Chen,et al.  Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. , 2011, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[13]  Anastasia Ivanova,et al.  TBCRC 001: randomized phase II study of cetuximab in combination with carboplatin in stage IV triple-negative breast cancer. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  R. Cress,et al.  Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative, progesterone receptor (PR)‐negative, and HER2‐negative invasive breast cancer, the so‐called triple‐negative phenotype , 2007, Cancer.

[15]  R. Kiyamova,et al.  Medullary breast carcinoma. , 2008, Experimental oncology.

[16]  David C. Jones,et al.  Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole genome sequences , 2016, Nature.

[17]  P. Campbell,et al.  Genomic Characterization of Primary Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  F. Markowetz,et al.  The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups , 2012, Nature.

[19]  Z. Hall.  Cancer , 1906, The Hospital.

[20]  Gordon B Mills,et al.  PIK3CA mutations in androgen receptor-positive triple negative breast cancer confer sensitivity to the combination of PI3K and androgen receptor inhibitors , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[21]  C. Bakal,et al.  Single-Cell Dynamics Determines Response to CDK4/6 Inhibition in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[22]  J. Balko,et al.  Triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[23]  R. Greil,et al.  Randomized phase II study of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.